Re: Record Shops
David Looser
>
> I was amazed when David L said that he had no local record shop.
> I have a dozen within 20 minutes of here,
Well let me see. 10 mins in one direction there's a small co-op, a post
office, a newsagents and a teashop. The post office does sell a few cheap
DVDs, but no audio. 10 minutes in the opposite direction there's a
post-office cum general store. 20 minutes away in yet another direction
there's a nice little town with a decent-sized co-op, a very good bookshop,
several charity shops, several banks, even two funeral directors, but no
record shops. Or 30 minutes away there's a bigger town, with expensive
parking. It's got a Maplins, several video-game shops and a whole street
full of mobile phone shops. It *did* have a very nice specialist classical
record shop, but that lost business to the on-line retailers and had to
close. There was also a Virgin Megastore (though I hardly ever went in, I
couldn't stand the place), I don't know what's happened to that. They may be
other record shops in back streets, I don't claim to know the town that
intimately, but certainly nothing in the town centre. Of course the big
out-of town supermarkets sell CDs now, there are a couple of those within 30
mins of me, but they only sell "chart" titles and I certainly don't regard
them as "record shops".
and CDON the online
> supplier delivers in 24hrs,
It's years since I've bought any CDs other than from on-line retailers,
except for a few "small-label" CDs bought from stalls at shows.
> There are already signs that the trend
> will be towards specialised shops, selling only jazz. or classical
> music. People seem to attach considerable importance
> to "record shop browsing" Both Helsinki and Stockholm have
> vinyl only shops, which seem to be doing well.
Both Helsinki and Stockholm are, so I'm lead to understand, quite large
cities. What may work in such places need not necessarily work in less
intensely populated areas.
David.
Serge Auckland
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7p9v9t...@mid.individual.net...
(both CD and LP) shops, but once you get into the provinces, that's much
less frequent.
20 years ago, my local town in rural Suffolk had one specialist record shop,
one shop selling used LPs and a few CDs, and two stalls on the midweek and
Saturday markets selling a wide range of CDs. In addition there was a
monthly Record Fair in one of the small halls. This is in addition to Boots
and W H Smiths that had reasonable CD racks, mostly chart stuff but also
some jazz and classical, and the out-of-town supermarkets.
Now we have only Boots and Smiths with chart-only CDs, one music shop that
has a rack of Naxos CDs, a brand new HMV that has chart only CDs in a dark
corner, everything else is games or DVDs and several charity shops that have
endless copies of Leo Sayer and David Essex LPs, although occasionally I
find an LP worth buying.
Cambridge is 35 miles away, but they too have lost two decent record shops
in recent years, and anyway, parking there is a nightmare so I rarely go
into the town. Consequently I buy virtually every CD now on-line.
S.
Brian Gaff
specialist shops exist in places like Greenwich and Brighton, but Virgin
sold up to a company nobody ever heard of, lasted a couple of years and then
went belly up.
They only have themselves to blame though. People would go into these
stores, and the spotty youth in charge, no matter what the question said,
don't mate, have a look over there and went on texting his mates and
laughing at his own text jokes.
They had the stock but it was badly presented, and no staff knew the
correct way to file things in any case, so eventually they died out.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7p9v9t...@mid.individual.net...
David Looser
news:IE_Xm.17776$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>I think HMV still hangs on in a few shopping centres and the like, some
>specialist shops exist in places like Greenwich and Brighton, but Virgin
>sold up to a company nobody ever heard of, lasted a couple of years and
>then went belly up.
>
Yup, I remember it being on the news. As I said there was one in the town
near me, I've no idea who has that site now or what they sell. I only ever
went in, once, to buy a carbon fibre record brush which, to be fair, they
did have. But I really disliked that shop: blaring pop music, 'moody'
lighting and screens everywhere with 'pop videos' on them.
Thinking about it I know of plenty of shops that sell a few CDs, but none
that I would call a "record shop". The "New Age" shop sells CDs of "New Age"
music, along with the clothes, incense burners and books on the Occult.
National Trust shops sell CDs of music recorded on National Trust
properties. Craft fairs often have a stall selling CDs by local musicians
and at the end of concerts there is often a stall selling CDs by the same
performers. Come to think of it, though, the only places I know where vinyl
records are sold are the charity shops selling second-hand records. When I'm
in such shops I usually flick through them to see if there is anything
interesting. There rarely is (except, possibly, to a Val Doonican fan!).
Along with the supermarkets and the significant growth of on-line sales,
both of physical CDs and downloads all that makes running a specialist
record shop pretty difficult these days I'd have thought except in the big
cities.
David.
Jim Lesurf
Auckland
<sergeauck...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> That's pretty much my experience too. London has several specialist
> record (both CD and LP) shops, but once you get into the provinces,
> that's much less frequent.
There are some specialists - like Bath CDs - but for obvious reasons they
tend to survive because they also sell via mail.
> Now we have only Boots and Smiths with chart-only CDs, one music shop
> that has a rack of Naxos CDs, a brand new HMV that has chart only CDs
> in a dark corner,
Ah, yes, I was forgetting that our Smugs does have some 'chart' CDs. Not
sure if Boots have anything. Can't recall noticing. Not exactly 'music
shops' in a sense I'd find useful, though.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Keith G
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IE_Xm.17776$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>specialist shops exist in places like Greenwich and Brighton, but Virgin
>sold up to a company nobody ever heard of, lasted a couple of years and
>then went belly up.
>
> They only have themselves to blame though. People would go into these
> stores, and the spotty youth in charge, no matter what the question said,
> don't mate, have a look over there and went on texting his mates and
> laughing at his own text jokes.
>
> They had the stock but it was badly presented, and no staff knew the
> correct way to file things in any case, so eventually they died out.
> Brian
Same sort of thing in MVC (?) St Ives, Cambs - I asked the two (female)
assistants doing *not a lot* behind the counter if they had any SACDs a year
or two back and got blank looks from both of them. (No wonder SACDs didn't
take off!!)
Anyway I got one to try one (stole it from Shiny Nigel) and, having just
topped my stack off only yesterday with my Pioneer DV-575A which plays
SACDs, I popped it in (the only SACD I'm ever likely to own), found Miles
Davis' 'So What' and ended up making this comparison out of curiosity:
SACD:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat01.mp3
Vinyl (no declicking):
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat02.mp3
Vinyl (declicked with Izotope, believe it or not)
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat03.mp3
Enjoy!
@:-)
Eiron
Is that the SACD with this written on the back?
" ... this reissue was remixed on an all-tube three-track machine,
an old Presto much like the one used for the original recordings."
--
Eiron.
Keith G
"Eiron" <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pc5bq...@mid.individual.net...
> Keith G wrote:
>> Same sort of thing in MVC (?) St Ives, Cambs - I asked the two (female)
>> assistants doing *not a lot* behind the counter if they had any SACDs a
>> year or two back and got blank looks from both of them. (No wonder SACDs
>> didn't take off!!)
>>
>> Anyway I got one to try one (stole it from Shiny Nigel) and, having just
>> topped my stack off only yesterday with my Pioneer DV-575A which plays
>> SACDs, I popped it in (the only SACD I'm ever likely to own), found Miles
>> Davis' 'So What' and ended up making this comparison out of curiosity:
>>
>> SACD:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat01.mp3
>>
>> Vinyl (no declicking):
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat02.mp3
>>
>> Vinyl (declicked with Izotope, believe it or not)
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat03.mp3
>
> Is that the SACD with this written on the back?
> " ... this reissue was remixed on an all-tube three-track machine,
> an old Presto much like the one used for the original recordings."
No, it says 'for promotional use only' on the back:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SACD01.jpg
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SACD02.jpg
I told you - I nicked it off Shiny Nigel who works in the one and only 'hifi
shop' here and they never even missed it!!
@:-))
David Looser
>
> One sees that cheaper labels often have their own stand in the corner of
> the shop, which they seem to service themselves.
"One" may see that, but I haven't seen it in decades.
> Budget labels.
> Pickwick/Hallmark/Allegro, and others were doing this with vinyl in
> the1960s.
>
Indeed they were, but ISTM that the 1960s were their heyday. Who are the
"budget labels" today? What I *do* quite often see (and sometimes buy) are
"no label" CDs from independant producers. The producers may well be the
musicians themselves who write, perform, record and distribute their own
work. But no way are these "budget" CDs, they sell for the same sort of
prices as chart CDs do.
David.
David Looser
news:7pc5bq...@mid.individual.net...
> Keith G wrote:
>>
>>
>> assistants doing *not a lot* behind the counter if they had any SACDs a
>> year or two back and got blank looks from both of them. (No wonder SACDs
>> didn't take off!!)
>>
SACDs would have taken off had they satisfied a consumer demand, but they
didn't. Too often the big consumer electronics comapanies get off on the
cleverness of their new technology and forget that the product has to offer
the consumer something (s)he is willing to pay for. SACD simply didn't do
that.
David.
MiNe 109
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
That said, had the major labels both supported hybrids and stopped
producing cds, few would have complained and the real benefits such as
multi-channel capability would have been available.
Stephen
David Looser
news:smcelroy2-DEF95...@nntp.aioe.org...
Hybrids are expensive to make, and have lower yields than plain CDs. I am
far from convinced that multi-channel capability is a "benefit" for music
recordings; the late and unlamented "quadraphonic" systems of the '70s
failed miserably to attract public interest and Dolby surround systems have
only sold in relatively small numbers to the "home cinema" brigade. If the
public had wanted SACD they'd have bought it - they didn't.
David.
Keith G
Hybrids might have worked if they were no more expensive than ordinary CDs
but there are a heap of reasons why SACD wasn't ever going to dislodge CDs.
The first and biggest mistake was to try and charge a lot more money for
SACDS when they were first introduced. 'Back catalogue' types weren't going
to go for it and 'current chart hit' types couldn't care less and SACDs
weren't available in the pub for a fraction of shop prices, anyway....
Next was that SACD players were too expensive and put the medium out of the
reach of many - I bought a secondhand SACD player *silly cheap* to try a
demo disk because a) someone had cut the captive mains lead down to a silly
12 inches and b) they wanted rid like it smelled of boiled cabbage. I then
found out the hard way while it would play retail CDs it wouldn't play CDRs
(it was a Sony), so I gave it to No.2 son who doesn't play rips. (He doesn't
play SACDs either.)
Even with a SACD player (or a more affordable DVD player with SACD
capability), Joe Ordinaire's 'so so' chainstore hi-fi wasn't ever going to
show a big enough improvement over CD to merit the (then?) premium pricing,
in any case. Not to mention 'digital music' had been moving away from CD for
a good while before SACDs showed up, so the cost of the SACD player was
probably going towards the purchase of an iPod!
And that's all two-channel! Very few people want the baggage, hassle and
expense of a 'surround system' - includes the normally 'techno hungry'
Japanese, I gather. (Can't think of anything more hideous than 'surround
sound' music, myself but there ya go....)
A total lack of advertising and promotion didn't help and so it goes on -
too late now, disks of any description are out (I said so here many years
ago) solid state is the way ahead.
Hi Def *video* is a completely different story - basically reverse
everything above and you can see why HDTV and Blu-ray is here to stay.
Bigger and better is easy enough for anyone to see and the the bigger you do
get, the more resolution you need. Doesn't hurt also that and HD video is
*constantly* being advertised in the media you are watching, on the
equipment you are (or would be) watching it on!
MiNe 109
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Manufacturing would have improved and costs diminished as volume
increased. In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only. With a single
inventory of hybrids, the consumer would have bought them without a
thought.
Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
that revenue.
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, I agree the introduction was botched.
Properly done, surround is a step up.
Stephen
David Looser
> In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
> ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
Search for a stereo-only what? Music system?
>
> Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
> license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
> that revenue.
>
Precisely, the benefit of SACD would have been to the manufacturer, not the
consumer. SACD wasn't quite as spectacular a failure as RCA's ill-fated
Selectavision video disk system, but it still joins the ranks of systems
that didn't make it.
David.
Arny Krueger
> Hybrids are expensive to make, and have lower yields than
> plain CDs. I am far from convinced that multi-channel
> capability is a "benefit" for music recordings; the late
> and unlamented "quadraphonic" systems of the '70s failed
> miserably to attract public interest and Dolby surround
> systems have only sold in relatively small numbers to the
> "home cinema" brigade. If the public had wanted SACD
> they'd have bought it - they didn't.
One of the recurrent themes related to SACD players and their weak bass
management. SACD was a victim of its own bogus hype. Consumers were told
that SACD sounded better because it was not PCM. This was a lie as
Vanderkooy and Lipshitz showed. Eventually, Sony admitted that most SACD
recordings were first converted to a kind of PCM before being coded as DSD.
The digital filtering that facilitated bass management of DSD multichannel
was always problematical unless it was converted to PCM.
SACD was one of the clearest examples of a solution looking for a problem in
the history of Hi Fi. Just about the only reliably audible sonic advantage
it had came from the fact that recordings were frequently remastered when
reissued on SACD. Of course remastering is like flipping a coin. Sometimes
the remastering job is productive, and sometimes it is a step backwards or
sideways. Of course you can count on audiophiles to perceive any change, no
matter how inaudible or wrong-headed, to be an improvement.
David Looser
>
> Properly done, surround is a step up.
>
Is it? I don't often agree with Keith, but "Can't think of anything more
hideous than 'surround
> sound' music, myself but there ya go...." is something I can agree with!
Do you sit in the middle of the orchestra when you go to a concert?
David.
Arny Krueger
news:hgvpa3$2vdl$1...@energise.enta.net
> Even with a SACD player (or a more affordable DVD player
> with SACD capability), Joe Ordinaire's 'so so' chainstore
> hi-fi wasn't ever going to show a big enough improvement
> over CD to merit the (then?) premium pricing, in any
> case.
Not to mention the JAES paper that showed that even when played on SOTA or
near-SOTA audio gear, plain old 44/16 PCM was sonically transparent. If true
Hiigh Fidelity is your goal, you can't do better than sonically accurate.
That means that anything more elaborate had no advantage as a distribution
format.
Of course we showed that back in the late 70s, even before the CD was
released to the public.
But Kitty's point has merit - look at how there are still a few backward
audiophiles who can tolerate listening to the inherent noise and distortion
in LPs? Word has it that some of them don't have 'so so' chainstore hi-fi
kit...
MiNe 109
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>
> > In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
> > ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
>
> Search for a stereo-only what? Music system?
Yes. The usual package is the home-theater-in-a-box with a receiver and
mini speakers.
This applies to the big consumer electronic stores. It's also hard for
the consumer to find a specialty shop: there are several dealers in my
city but only one maintains a store front.
> > Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
> > license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
> > that revenue.
> >
> Precisely, the benefit of SACD would have been to the manufacturer, not the
> consumer. SACD wasn't quite as spectacular a failure as RCA's ill-fated
> Selectavision video disk system, but it still joins the ranks of systems
> that didn't make it.
Yes, indeed, except possibly as a niche for surround-sound classical
fans.
Stephen
Keith G
Not for me it's not - I don't much care for it with movies* other than the
'HD' soundtracks are so far ahead of the basic 'DD 5.1' they simply can't be
ignored and *never* for music! For me, half the point of a good 'stereo'
(solid) soundstage is that at times, some of the instruments are way back
*over there* like they were in the superb Shostakovich Symph No. 8 I played
the other evening - which I am certain was a two mic 'Russian' recording,
despite being described as 'A First American Recording' on the sleeve....
*Total immersion scenes like the landing scene and various anti-tank battles
in Saving Private Ryan are an exception; I have terrified visitors with
them, with the volume turned right up and a 120 inch projected picture -
they stand there with *slapped faces*!! @:-)
Keith G
Yes, by about the end of week 2....
In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
> ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
Stereo amps are hard to find in the US?
I have one cinema system with a 5.1 speaker setup which is going to lose its
sub *this afternoon* to my other system which is stereo only and is a better
sound - due to being single driver 'fullrange' speakers, I suspect!! If the
sub doesn't improve the sound with a pair of bookshelf speakers (I have A
and B speaker switching on the amp) it will go!
@;-)
> Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
> license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
> that revenue.
Now *that* is the right question, Detective Spooner....
Keith G
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote
> Now *that* is the right question, Detective Spooner....
>
OK, let's have it exactly *right*:
*That*, Detective, is the right question. Program terminated.
@:-)
MiNe 109
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Sometimes. Most often I sit in a hall surrounded by the room. If you're
asking what "properly done" is, I agree orchestral music shouldn't
generally have an inside the orchestra perspective. Surround should
enable proper reverberation and hall sound.
When you go to a concert, how do you avoid the hall sound?
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:smcelroy2-5FECB...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <hgvpa3$2vdl$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> > "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> Hi Def *video* is a completely different story - basically reverse
> >> everything above and you can see why HDTV and Blu-ray is here to stay.
> >> Bigger and better is easy enough for anyone to see and the the bigger you
> >> do
> >> get, the more resolution you need. Doesn't hurt also that and HD video is
> >> *constantly* being advertised in the media you are watching, on the
> >> equipment you are (or would be) watching it on!
> >
> > Yes, I agree the introduction was botched.
> >
> > Properly done, surround is a step up.
>
>
> Not for me it's not - I don't much care for it with movies* other than the
> 'HD' soundtracks are so far ahead of the basic 'DD 5.1' they simply can't be
> ignored and *never* for music! For me, half the point of a good 'stereo'
> (solid) soundstage is that at times, some of the instruments are way back
> *over there* like they were in the superb Shostakovich Symph No. 8 I played
> the other evening - which I am certain was a two mic 'Russian' recording,
> despite being described as 'A First American Recording' on the sleeve....
Proper surround has an even more solid soundstage. That's what it should
be for IMO. There are plenty of surround Shosty 8s out there:
Berglund/Russian National Orchestra; Rostropovich/LSO. Haven't heard
them myself, but there's your comparison if you ever feel like doing it.
> *Total immersion scenes like the landing scene and various anti-tank battles
> in Saving Private Ryan are an exception; I have terrified visitors with
> them, with the volume turned right up and a 120 inch projected picture -
> they stand there with *slapped faces*!! @:-)
"Total immersion" is the point!
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
The Rolling Stones sold plenty of hybrids.
> In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
> > ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
>
>
> Stereo amps are hard to find in the US?
Yes, and no. Shelf-space is given to theater receivers in consumer
electronics stores. You might have to talk to a sales-droid to find a
stereo receiver or amp.
> I have one cinema system with a 5.1 speaker setup which is going to lose its
> sub *this afternoon* to my other system which is stereo only and is a better
> sound - due to being single driver 'fullrange' speakers, I suspect!! If the
> sub doesn't improve the sound with a pair of bookshelf speakers (I have A
> and B speaker switching on the amp) it will go!
>
> @;-)
The worst cheap surround systems have mini speakers that don't go low
enough with subs that don't go high enough to cover the full-range.
> > Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
> > license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
> > that revenue.
>
>
> Now *that* is the right question, Detective Spooner....
"Follow the money" is the American saying.
Stephen
Arny Krueger
> I have one cinema system with a 5.1 speaker setup which
> is going to lose its sub *this afternoon* to my other
> system which is stereo only and is a better sound - due
> to being single driver 'fullrange' speakers, I suspect!!
> If the sub doesn't improve the sound with a pair of
> bookshelf speakers (I have A and B speaker switching on
> the amp) it will go!
You just contradicted yourself again, Kitty. Your proposed subwoofer
"upgrade" essentially turns your single driver 'fullrange' speakers into
2-way systems. We've been telling you all along that single driver
'fullrange' speakers are essentially an oxymoron, and now by your actions,
you're proving us right.
Keith G
Thanks, but see below:
>
>> *Total immersion scenes like the landing scene and various anti-tank
>> battles
>> in Saving Private Ryan are an exception; I have terrified visitors with
>> them, with the volume turned right up and a 120 inch projected picture -
>> they stand there with *slapped faces*!! @:-)
>
> "Total immersion" is the point!
Sure - total immersion in a battle scene/storm/earthquake/road race/whatever
is one thing but I don't want *immersion* into the music! The objective of a
good music playback system is to put you in the auditorium - not into the
orchestra or to put the orchestra in your room, all about you!!
I am suddenly reminded of an exceptionally good bit of 'surround sound' that
had us in stitches, one time - it was in one of the Resident Evil follow ups
where there was this silly great 'Golem' type killer robot with big metal
diver's boots on. At one point it clonked towards us and then *appeared* to
steadily clonk between us and then right back behind us past the PJ and off
into the distance!
Time stood still, nobody moved, tumbleweed rolled by, we just sat there
without a word and looked at each other!!
Hilarious!
@ :-))
Keith G
A good recording played over, dare I say it, a good 'valves and vinyl'
system into 'horns' will give you all the 'hall' and 'surround' you want or
the music needs!
While Iain's away toasting his tits in the sun, I will grab this opportunity
to say that, while I'm very happy with mono recordings much of the time, for
me two mics, two speakers and two ears is all you need and is the *right
way* to go in my book!!
If properly done, of course....
@;-)
Keith G
"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>> > Manufacturing would have improved and costs diminished as volume
>> > increased.
>>
>>
>> Yes, by about the end of week 2....
>
> The Rolling Stones sold plenty of hybrids.
That'll be Mick Jagger's little frilly dress then....
@;-)
>
>> In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
>> > ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
>>
>>
>> Stereo amps are hard to find in the US?
>
> Yes, and no. Shelf-space is given to theater receivers in consumer
> electronics stores. You might have to talk to a sales-droid to find a
> stereo receiver or amp.
Now that you say that, I recall the last time I was in the local hifi shop
(to buy an amp), there were only 2 stereo amps to choose from against at
least half a dozen 'cinema amps'!! Luckily, one of the stereo amps was/is
exactly what I wanted.
>
>> I have one cinema system with a 5.1 speaker setup which is going to lose
>> its
>> sub *this afternoon* to my other system which is stereo only and is a
>> better
>> sound - due to being single driver 'fullrange' speakers, I suspect!! If
>> the
>> sub doesn't improve the sound with a pair of bookshelf speakers (I have
>> A
>> and B speaker switching on the amp) it will go!
>>
>> @;-)
>
> The worst cheap surround systems have mini speakers that don't go low
> enough with subs that don't go high enough to cover the full-range.
The point with cheap speaker packages is they make a lot of people happy!
>
>> > Of course, the real benefit of SACD was to Sony/Philips as the cd
>> > license was running out and a switch would have been a way to replace
>> > that revenue.
>>
>>
>> Now *that* is the right question, Detective Spooner....
>
> "Follow the money" is the American saying.
@:-)
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
Who says that's what classical SACDs do? Aren't you assuming the worst
case? How about the three-channel SACDs of golden-age RCA recordings? If
the orchestra's all about you, your center channel's in the wrong place!
> I am suddenly reminded of an exceptionally good bit of 'surround sound' that
> had us in stitches, one time - it was in one of the Resident Evil follow ups
> where there was this silly great 'Golem' type killer robot with big metal
> diver's boots on. At one point it clonked towards us and then *appeared* to
> steadily clonk between us and then right back behind us past the PJ and off
> into the distance!
>
> Time stood still, nobody moved, tumbleweed rolled by, we just sat there
> without a word and looked at each other!!
>
> Hilarious!
>
> @ :-))
Sounds like fun.
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:smcelroy2-7FA40...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <7phaqo...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Properly done, surround is a step up.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is it? I don't often agree with Keith, but "Can't think of anything more
> >> hideous than 'surround
> >> > sound' music, myself but there ya go...." is something I can agree
> >> > with!
> >>
> >> Do you sit in the middle of the orchestra when you go to a concert?
> >
> > Sometimes. Most often I sit in a hall surrounded by the room. If you're
> > asking what "properly done" is, I agree orchestral music shouldn't
> > generally have an inside the orchestra perspective. Surround should
> > enable proper reverberation and hall sound.
> >
> > When you go to a concert, how do you avoid the hall sound?
>
>
> A good recording played over, dare I say it, a good 'valves and vinyl'
> system into 'horns' will give you all the 'hall' and 'surround' you want or
> the music needs!
I'm not suffering with stereo or anything.
> While Iain's away toasting his tits in the sun, I will grab this opportunity
> to say that, while I'm very happy with mono recordings much of the time, for
> me two mics, two speakers and two ears is all you need and is the *right
> way* to go in my book!!
I like mono, too.
> If properly done, of course....
>
> @;-)
Properly done heals all wounds!
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
> >> > Manufacturing would have improved and costs diminished as volume
> >> > increased.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, by about the end of week 2....
> >
> > The Rolling Stones sold plenty of hybrids.
>
>
> That'll be Mick Jagger's little frilly dress then....
>
> @;-)
And they did it by not telling people what they were getting!
> >> In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
> >> > ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
> >>
> >>
> >> Stereo amps are hard to find in the US?
> >
> > Yes, and no. Shelf-space is given to theater receivers in consumer
> > electronics stores. You might have to talk to a sales-droid to find a
> > stereo receiver or amp.
>
>
> Now that you say that, I recall the last time I was in the local hifi shop
> (to buy an amp), there were only 2 stereo amps to choose from against at
> least half a dozen 'cinema amps'!! Luckily, one of the stereo amps was/is
> exactly what I wanted.
The determined consumer can also go online.
> >> I have one cinema system with a 5.1 speaker setup which is going to lose
> >> its
> >> sub *this afternoon* to my other system which is stereo only and is a
> >> better
> >> sound - due to being single driver 'fullrange' speakers, I suspect!! If
> >> the
> >> sub doesn't improve the sound with a pair of bookshelf speakers (I have
> >> A
> >> and B speaker switching on the amp) it will go!
> >>
> >> @;-)
> >
> > The worst cheap surround systems have mini speakers that don't go low
> > enough with subs that don't go high enough to cover the full-range.
>
>
> The point with cheap speaker packages is they make a lot of people happy!
Yes, and I've been pleasantly surprised by not awful tv systems. I guess
there's some design effort for that.
Keith G
<snippage>
>> Sure - total immersion in a battle scene/storm/earthquake/road
>> race/whatever
>> is one thing but I don't want *immersion* into the music! The objective
>> of a
>> good music playback system is to put you in the auditorium - not into the
>> orchestra or to put the orchestra in your room, all about you!!
>
> Who says that's what classical SACDs do? Aren't you assuming the worst
> case? How about the three-channel SACDs of golden-age RCA recordings? If
> the orchestra's all about you, your center channel's in the wrong place!
I would have no problem at all with 3 channel stereo SACDs for music - it's
the *surround* bit (ie the 'rears') that I don't like to contemplate!
>
>> I am suddenly reminded of an exceptionally good bit of 'surround sound'
>> that
>> had us in stitches, one time - it was in one of the Resident Evil follow
>> ups
>> where there was this silly great 'Golem' type killer robot with big metal
>> diver's boots on. At one point it clonked towards us and then *appeared*
>> to
>> steadily clonk between us and then right back behind us past the PJ and
>> off
>> into the distance!
>>
>> Time stood still, nobody moved, tumbleweed rolled by, we just sat there
>> without a word and looked at each other!!
>>
>> Hilarious!
>>
>> @ :-))
>
> Sounds like fun.
It was!
I hafta say that sometimes with 'horror' movies also the rears can have some
good scary stuff on them - in particular, there was one moment in a movie
(no idea what, now) where a door snicked open so clearly on one of the rears
it was like the real door near the speaker was being opened!
Very spooky at the time !!
Keith G
>> A good recording played over, dare I say it, a good 'valves and vinyl'
>> system into 'horns' will give you all the 'hall' and 'surround' you want
>> or
>> the music needs!
>
> I'm not suffering with stereo or anything.
:-)
>
>> While Iain's away toasting his tits in the sun, I will grab this
>> opportunity
>> to say that, while I'm very happy with mono recordings much of the time,
>> for
>> me two mics, two speakers and two ears is all you need and is the *right
>> way* to go in my book!!
>
> I like mono, too.
I've recently disclovered 'dual mono' fills out the listening area with
'more' sound (other than just turning the wick up) which is still mono, but
you lose the nice, compact filesizes!!
>
>> If properly done, of course....
>>
>> @;-)
>
> Properly done heals all wounds!
It does indeed!!
@:-)
Keith G
> In article <hh061q$htn$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>>
>>
>> >> > Manufacturing would have improved and costs diminished as volume
>> >> > increased.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, by about the end of week 2....
>> >
>> > The Rolling Stones sold plenty of hybrids.
>>
>>
>> That'll be Mick Jagger's little frilly dress then....
>>
>> @;-)
>
> And they did it by not telling people what they were getting!
I think Mick Jagger worked that one on Marianne Faithful on a certain
*famous occasion*!! ;-)
>
>> >> In the US home theater receivers and surround systems are
>> >> > ubiquitous while one must search for stereo-only.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stereo amps are hard to find in the US?
>> >
>> > Yes, and no. Shelf-space is given to theater receivers in consumer
>> > electronics stores. You might have to talk to a sales-droid to find a
>> > stereo receiver or amp.
>>
>>
>> Now that you say that, I recall the last time I was in the local hifi
>> shop
>> (to buy an amp), there were only 2 stereo amps to choose from against at
>> least half a dozen 'cinema amps'!! Luckily, one of the stereo amps was/is
>> exactly what I wanted.
>
> The determined consumer can also go online.
Hah! Prompts me to post this heads-up for anyone wanting to go Blu-ray (not
region-free though):
I've just grabbed one of these - 40 quid cheaper than they were a week or so
ago and still 20 quid cheaper than other online sellers who currently list
them but probably haven't got any!
>> The point with cheap speaker packages is they make a lot of people happy!
>
> Yes, and I've been pleasantly surprised by not awful tv systems. I guess
> there's some design effort for that.
Happy punters (lots and lots) means more to even consumer electronics
*Ubergiants* than impressing a handful of technotwats with flashy specs and
unnecessarily 'audiophile' componentry....
Serge Auckland
I can't even cope with stereo on TV. A 3m wide audio stage with a 1.5m wide
video stage is all wrong. As to a surround audio stage when the picture is
all in front is even more wrong. I watch TV with 'speakers directly either
side of the picture. Actually prefer mono on TV, then the sound comes out of
the screen.
On the other hand, surround sound for classical music is fine if the
surround is used for hall ambiance, or for effects as composed, like
Palestrina's vespers which had various small choirs arranged round the hall.
What doesn't work is phantom images created by pan-potting, as phantom
images don't form to the sides, and less well at the back.
S.
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:smcelroy2-4CA03...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <hh0594$gp7$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> > "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> <snippage>
>
>
> >> Sure - total immersion in a battle scene/storm/earthquake/road
> >> race/whatever
> >> is one thing but I don't want *immersion* into the music! The objective
> >> of a
> >> good music playback system is to put you in the auditorium - not into the
> >> orchestra or to put the orchestra in your room, all about you!!
> >
> > Who says that's what classical SACDs do? Aren't you assuming the worst
> > case? How about the three-channel SACDs of golden-age RCA recordings? If
> > the orchestra's all about you, your center channel's in the wrong place!
>
>
> I would have no problem at all with 3 channel stereo SACDs for music - it's
> the *surround* bit (ie the 'rears') that I don't like to contemplate!
Just a little reverb is all. Nothing to be scared of. If you 'hear' it,
it's too loud.
> >> I am suddenly reminded of an exceptionally good bit of 'surround sound'
> >> that
> >> had us in stitches, one time - it was in one of the Resident Evil follow
> >> ups
> >> where there was this silly great 'Golem' type killer robot with big metal
> >> diver's boots on. At one point it clonked towards us and then *appeared*
> >> to
> >> steadily clonk between us and then right back behind us past the PJ and
> >> off
> >> into the distance!
> >>
> >> Time stood still, nobody moved, tumbleweed rolled by, we just sat there
> >> without a word and looked at each other!!
> >>
> >> Hilarious!
> >>
> >> @ :-))
> >
> > Sounds like fun.
>
>
> It was!
>
> I hafta say that sometimes with 'horror' movies also the rears can have some
> good scary stuff on them - in particular, there was one moment in a movie
> (no idea what, now) where a door snicked open so clearly on one of the rears
> it was like the real door near the speaker was being opened!
>
> Very spooky at the time !!
And at home one can turn the "rumble of doom" down if wanted.
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> I've recently disclovered 'dual mono' fills out the listening area with
> 'more' sound (other than just turning the wick up) which is still mono, but
> you lose the nice, compact filesizes!!
My surround receiver has a "stereo" mode that's really mono to all
channels!
Does sound full.
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, those prices are dropping. That success would be unimaginable
without the widespread availability of hi-def tv displays.
> >> The point with cheap speaker packages is they make a lot of people happy!
> >
> > Yes, and I've been pleasantly surprised by not awful tv systems. I guess
> > there's some design effort for that.
>
>
> Happy punters (lots and lots) means more to even consumer electronics
> *Ubergiants* than impressing a handful of technotwats with flashy specs and
> unnecessarily 'audiophile' componentry....
Doesn't mean you can't have both! Bose and Bang and Olufsen probably
have happy customers.
Stephen
Keith G
Don't need it - the whole point of 'valves and vinyl' (on horns) for music
is that it already has all the 'air' you need!
(FX boxes with dial-in 'concert hall', 'warehouse', 'bandstand', 'whatever'
reverb/delay settings ain't my bag, baby! ;-)
>> Very spooky at the time !!
>
> And at home one can turn the "rumble of doom" down if wanted.
But not the thunderous rumble of a big spaceship in space or it just
wouldn't look 'right'....
Keith G
"Serge Auckland" <sergeauck...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7aadndPZCYdOWK7W...@bt.com...
I agree and a good two-channel stereo (with a sub, as of about 20 minutes
ago) will do me but the *total immersion mayhem* scenes are very impressive!
You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance - is
why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide image!!
And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!
>
> On the other hand, surround sound for classical music is fine if the
> surround is used for hall ambiance, or for effects as composed, like
> Palestrina's vespers which had various small choirs arranged round the
> hall. What doesn't work is phantom images created by pan-potting, as
> phantom images don't form to the sides, and less well at the back.
I'd sooner listen to a mono Roberts portable (and frequently do) than to all
that BS done badly!
Keith G
All individual channels on any amp are *mono*!!
Keith G
>> Hah! Prompts me to post this heads-up for anyone wanting to go Blu-ray
>> (not
>> region-free though):
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-BDPS360-Profile-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B0027FFX4O/ref=
>> sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1261674720&sr=1-1
>>
>> I've just grabbed one of these - 40 quid cheaper than they were a week or
>> so
>> ago and still 20 quid cheaper than other online sellers who currently
>> list
>> them but probably haven't got any!
>
> Yes, those prices are dropping. That success would be unimaginable
> without the widespread availability of hi-def tv displays.
Absolutely. You could almost go further and say HD *will* succeed because
it's fast becoming the case that there's no available alternative!
>> Happy punters (lots and lots) means more to even consumer electronics
>> *Ubergiants* than impressing a handful of technotwats with flashy specs
>> and
>> unnecessarily 'audiophile' componentry....
>
> Doesn't mean you can't have both! Bose and Bang and Olufsen probably
> have happy customers.
>
Ooh, but can they though - produce for both ends of the 'hifi buying'
spectrum, that is?
Various reading and browsing leads me to believe that even firms like Sony
struggled to convince the 'high end boys' that their 'audiophile' ranges
are/were up to the standards of overpriced 'boutique audio' from UK (and now
Chinese) *cottage industry* manufacturers and that ground-breaking,
industry-leading firms with humble origins like Lucky Goldstar can suffer
from a lingering (but rapidly diminishing) association with their earlier,
cheap and (in some cases) fairly nasty products!!
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
I prefer recordings with real hall ambience, but the ear is easily
fooled.
> >> Very spooky at the time !!
> >
> > And at home one can turn the "rumble of doom" down if wanted.
>
>
> But not the thunderous rumble of a big spaceship in space or it just
> wouldn't look 'right'....
That can be fun, but in space no one can hear you rumble!
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:smcelroy2-54197...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <hh0dl0$tvt$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> > "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I've recently disclovered 'dual mono' fills out the listening area with
> >> 'more' sound (other than just turning the wick up) which is still mono,
> >> but
> >> you lose the nice, compact filesizes!!
> >
> > My surround receiver has a "stereo" mode that's really mono to all
> > channels!
>
>
> All individual channels on any amp are *mono*!!
Okay. This mode feeds the same mono signal to all the channels.
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:smcelroy2-F4EB0...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <hh0eeb$v7s$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> > "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Hah! Prompts me to post this heads-up for anyone wanting to go Blu-ray
> >> (not
> >> region-free though):
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-BDPS360-Profile-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B0027FFX4O/r
> >> ef=
> >> sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1261674720&sr=1-1
> >>
> >> I've just grabbed one of these - 40 quid cheaper than they were a week or
> >> so
> >> ago and still 20 quid cheaper than other online sellers who currently
> >> list
> >> them but probably haven't got any!
> >
> > Yes, those prices are dropping. That success would be unimaginable
> > without the widespread availability of hi-def tv displays.
>
>
> Absolutely. You could almost go further and say HD *will* succeed because
> it's fast becoming the case that there's no available alternative!
The market for standard definition analog tvs in the US has evaporated.
> >> Happy punters (lots and lots) means more to even consumer electronics
> >> *Ubergiants* than impressing a handful of technotwats with flashy specs
> >> and
> >> unnecessarily 'audiophile' componentry....
> >
> > Doesn't mean you can't have both! Bose and Bang and Olufsen probably
> > have happy customers.
> >
>
> Ooh, but can they though - produce for both ends of the 'hifi buying'
> spectrum, that is?
Maybe, maybe not, but they can sell product without resorting to
specmanship and flashy looks. Well, tradition hi-fi styling.
> Various reading and browsing leads me to believe that even firms like Sony
> struggled to convince the 'high end boys' that their 'audiophile' ranges
> are/were up to the standards of overpriced 'boutique audio' from UK (and now
> Chinese) *cottage industry* manufacturers and that ground-breaking,
> industry-leading firms with humble origins like Lucky Goldstar can suffer
> from a lingering (but rapidly diminishing) association with their earlier,
> cheap and (in some cases) fairly nasty products!!
Huh? Sony has always had respected high-end digital products. LG doesn't
have high-end audio that I know of, while their tvs are everywhere.
Stephen
Keith G
"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>> > Yes, those prices are dropping. That success would be unimaginable
>> > without the widespread availability of hi-def tv displays.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. You could almost go further and say HD *will* succeed because
>> it's fast becoming the case that there's no available alternative!
>
> The market for standard definition analog tvs in the US has evaporated.
I understand that it is simply not possible to buy an SD TV in the UK these
days??
>> Various reading and browsing leads me to believe that even firms like
>> Sony
>> struggled to convince the 'high end boys' that their 'audiophile' ranges
>> are/were up to the standards of overpriced 'boutique audio' from UK (and
>> now
>> Chinese) *cottage industry* manufacturers and that ground-breaking,
>> industry-leading firms with humble origins like Lucky Goldstar can suffer
>> from a lingering (but rapidly diminishing) association with their
>> earlier,
>> cheap and (in some cases) fairly nasty products!!
>
> Huh? Sony has always had respected high-end digital products.
Not so much in the UK, I think.
LG doesn't
> have high-end audio that I know of, while their tvs are everywhere.
Yes - LG and Samsung are a mighty force in the 'AV' world!
Keith G
They can if you touch helmets while 'rumbling' apparently!
Oh well, it's nearly Christmas Day - time for a little finger food and a
glass and watch a movie (Ichi) on the 'big screen'!!
(We're a little on the 'no longer young enough side' to be out partying!!
;-)
Have a Happy Christmas!!
<@:-{>
(Santa Man!?)
UnsteadyKen
> You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance - is
> why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide image!!
Not sure if I agree about it being silly, for about a month I've been
trying precisely that: 28" screen and 10 feet wide sound.
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/photo/nettocam.html
I did have the speakers as close as possible to the TV before.
The new arrangement work quite well for both TV and music.
> And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!
Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.
I've also been investigating the "Auto Volume" feature on the TV,
basically it is a compander, lifting low level and suppressing loud
sounds. It's very heavy handed and the effect on music is laughable but
it works well on some programs for late night listening.On speech radio
everybodytalks in a subdued monotone, rather like effect of the very
low bit depth digital radio which I did a lot of listening to in the
70's.
http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
> >> > Yes, those prices are dropping. That success would be unimaginable
> >> > without the widespread availability of hi-def tv displays.
> >>
> >>
> >> Absolutely. You could almost go further and say HD *will* succeed because
> >> it's fast becoming the case that there's no available alternative!
> >
> > The market for standard definition analog tvs in the US has evaporated.
>
>
> I understand that it is simply not possible to buy an SD TV in the UK these
> days??
All but impossible. I just browsed Walmart and there was a CRT/dvd combo
at 480 listed but none available.
> >> Various reading and browsing leads me to believe that even firms like
> >> Sony
> >> struggled to convince the 'high end boys' that their 'audiophile' ranges
> >> are/were up to the standards of overpriced 'boutique audio' from UK (and
> >> now
> >> Chinese) *cottage industry* manufacturers and that ground-breaking,
> >> industry-leading firms with humble origins like Lucky Goldstar can suffer
> >> from a lingering (but rapidly diminishing) association with their
> >> earlier,
> >> cheap and (in some cases) fairly nasty products!!
> >
> > Huh? Sony has always had respected high-end digital products.
>
>
> Not so much in the UK, I think.
No ES series? The flagship SACD players were well-regarded.
MiNe 109
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> Have a Happy Christmas!!
Merry Christmas!
Stephen
Keith G
"UnsteadyKen" <unste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.259e1365a...@news.btinternet.com...
> Keith G said...
>
>> You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance -
>> is
>> why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide
>> image!!
>
> Not sure if I agree about it being silly, for about a month I've been
> trying precisely that: 28" screen and 10 feet wide sound.
> http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/photo/nettocam.html
> I did have the speakers as close as possible to the TV before.
> The new arrangement work quite well for both TV and music.
>
>> And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!
>
> Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.
Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide speaker
arrangements!
>
> I've also been investigating the "Auto Volume" feature on the TV,
> basically it is a compander, lifting low level and suppressing loud
> sounds. It's very heavy handed and the effect on music is laughable but
> it works well on some programs for late night listening.On speech radio
> everybodytalks in a subdued monotone, rather like effect of the very
> low bit depth digital radio which I did a lot of listening to in the
> 70's.
> http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html
>
Nice Show N Tell and interesting pix of encrypted comms kit - digital
descendants of SIGSALY I guess?
Keith G
>> I understand that it is simply not possible to buy an SD TV in the UK
>> these
>> days??
>
> All but impossible. I just browsed Walmart and there was a CRT/dvd combo
> at 480 listed but none available.
There you are then!
>> > Huh? Sony has always had respected high-end digital products.
>>
>>
>> Not so much in the UK, I think.
>
> No ES series? The flagship SACD players were well-regarded.
Yes, ES stuff is/was available and very nice too, but I don't think people
held it in quite the same esteem as 'high end' domestically-produced stuff.
Maybe that's just me, maybe I'm wrong?
Frank
> SACD:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat01.mp3
>
> Vinyl (no declicking):
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat02.mp3
>
> Vinyl (declicked with Izotope, believe it or not)
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat03.mp3
>
>
> Enjoy!
Why does the second track sound better than the first one?
Frank
Ken
Keith G
"Ken" <ke...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:7kjaj55rbna8ggi2v...@4ax.com...
Actually, it isn't - if you look at the waveforms you will see the SACD
track (01) is louder in the right channel than the LP and the LP track (02)
is louder than the SACD in the left channel.
It's the best compromise I could get: the SACD clip recorded at a much lower
overall level than the LP and I had to bring up the volume and try to match
it manually in the recording software at the 'crossover point' - a kludge at
the best of times, but close enough for *listening* purposes.
Anyway, A/B comparisons like this are meaningless to anyone other than
'measurement freaks' - if anyone is looking for a 'winner' in situations
like this, the only way to choose between SACD/CD and 'vinyl' is to have
both, play both and see which one 'wins' (is played the most) over a period
of time.
Something I did a long time ago....
@;-)
Ken
wrote:
> >> > SACD:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat01.mp3
> >> >
> >> > Vinyl (no declicking):
> >> >
> >> > http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat02.mp3
> >> >
> >> > Vinyl (declicked with Izotope, believe it or not)
> >> >
> >> > http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat03.mp3
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Enjoy!
> >>
> >>
> >> Why does the second track sound better than the first one?
> >
> > Higher level.
>
>
>
> Actually, it isn't - if you look at the waveforms you will see the SACD
> track (01) is louder in the right channel than the LP and the LP track (02)
> is louder than the SACD in the left channel.
>
> It's the best compromise I could get: the SACD clip recorded at a much lower
> overall level than the LP and I had to bring up the volume and try to match
> it manually in the recording software at the 'crossover point' - a kludge at
> the best of times, but close enough for *listening* purposes.
>
> Anyway, A/B comparisons like this are meaningless to anyone other than
> 'measurement freaks' - if anyone is looking for a 'winner' in situations
> like this, the only way to choose between SACD/CD and 'vinyl' is to have
> both, play both and see which one 'wins' (is played the most) over a period
> of time.
>
> Something I did a long time ago....
>
> @;-)
I don't look at the waveforms, I only listen.
Second track sounds higher.
Keith G
This is an audio newsgroup full of audio newsgroup types: I don't think it's
unreasonable to expect that at least the majority of said audio newsgroup
types would either look at waveforms or at least be able to look at
waveforms in situations like these. 'Loudest = best' is for your *auntie*,
not for audio newsgroup types - try using a volume control somewhere along
the line....
Frank
No no no ... I said that the second track sounded better not louder.
The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the
first one ... and different overall.
Frank
Keith G
"Frank" <frankl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b361fbb$0$1136$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...
That's perfectly understood Frank - I was merely responding to Ken's remark
that the second clip was louder.
> The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the first
> one ... and different overall.
I'm not aware of any problems with my deck and there is a strobe light on it
which never seems to change or need adjustment, but you can never rule out
pitch differences with turntables! (And I have been known to run a turntable
3.3% fast for a couple of weeks, a few years ago!! ;-)
Eiron
>
> "Frank" <frankl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b361fbb$0$1136$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...
>> The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the
>> first one ... and different overall.
>
>
> I'm not aware of any problems with my deck and there is a strobe light
> on it which never seems to change or need adjustment, but you can never
> rule out pitch differences with turntables! (And I have been known to
> run a turntable 3.3% fast for a couple of weeks, a few years ago!! ;-)
Again, it's all in the sleeve notes for the 75th anniversary edition of
'Kind of Blue',
which is where the track on Keith's SACD sampler came from.
Apparently the LP and all previous CDs were a bit fast.
--
Eiron.
Keith G
"Eiron" <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pn0vc...@mid.individual.net...
Looks like it - I've recorded the SACD and LP versions again, mono'd them
both and pasted the resultant mono tracks into a stereo window (SACD over
LP) with an exact 2 seconds lead into the beginning of both tracks to lift
them clear of the frame edge:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg
If I've read the tricky little numbers correct, the SACD track is 9m 20.5s
long while the LP track is only 8m 55.5sec long - a difference of 25
seconds! That's not inconsiderable, is it?
No wonder the SACD version sounds 'dreary' by comparison to what I am used
to...!!
Frank
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg
>
Is it compression that makes the lower track look fatter or it is simply
more dymnamic? Are we sure they are the same track ;-)?
I do enjoy this.
Frank
Keith G
OK, just for you and with no expense spared, I have uploaded the mono wavs
whose waveforms are in the pic so you can check and make all the comparisons
you want for yourself:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatSACDMONO.wav
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatLPMONO.wav
(How broad is your band? They are getting on for 50 Meg apiece!! ;-)
The interesting thing here is that I have always believed that what we get
used to becomes a 'norm' for us (speakers in particular) - to me, the SACD
version sounds comparatively dull/flat/tired/whatever and I wouldn't choose
it over the LP, even if the LP version is *officially* too quick!!
Now, is that *vinyl denial* or what?
@:-))
Frank
Took 2 mins to dl the both of them. I'm curious about what's your setup
for playing vinyl. By the way, lpmono version sounds a bit dirty but a
lot more natural.
So there is no need for me to buy a sacd player and my tt collection
will surely outlive me ...
Frank
Keith G
> Keith G ha scritto:
>>
>> OK, just for you and with no expense spared, I have uploaded the mono
>> wavs whose waveforms are in the pic so you can check and make all the
>> comparisons you want for yourself:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatSACDMONO.wav
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatLPMONO.wav
>>
>>
>> (How broad is your band? They are getting on for 50 Meg apiece!! ;-)
> Took 2 mins to dl the both of them.
Took a lot longer than that to upload them!
I'm curious about what's your setup
> for playing vinyl.
Nothing but the best of everything:
Main Vinyl Rig (into Fidelios, extreme right):
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Vinyl%20Rig.jpg
Digitising Rig:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Digitising%20Rig.jpg
(Excuse 'quick and lazy' crap pic quality!)
By the way, lpmono version sounds a bit dirty
I think it's a rather well-used copy but I'll give it a shampoo and set with
the next batch for cleaning, probably tomorrow!
but a
> lot more natural.
Is my main argument for vinyl....
> So there is no need for me to buy a sacd player and my tt collection will
> surely outlive me ...
Same here!!
@:-)
UnsteadyKen
> > Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.
>
>
> Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide speaker
> arrangements!
I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.
I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
accommodation.
They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
bracket. Me very chuffed.
> > [quoted text muted]
> > http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html
> >
>
>
> Nice Show N Tell and interesting pix of encrypted comms kit - digital
> descendants of SIGSALY I guess?
I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.
I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
was still perfectly intelligible.
Keith G
> Keith G said...
>
>> > Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.
>>
>>
>> Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide
>> speaker
>> arrangements!
>
> I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
> and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
> It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
> image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.
Been there and done that no end of times!
>
> I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
> the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
> room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
> that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
> accommodation.
The easiest 'room treatment' in my book is to fill the room with soft
furniture. It's hard, reflective surfaces combined with wide, open spaces
that give you problems.
>
> They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
> comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
> surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
> to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
> bracket. Me very chuffed.
That's excellent, but I suspect a good 'audiologist' is one who knows how to
conduct his tests properly but also sends his customers away feeling good
about themselves and things generally...
;-)
> I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
> Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
> where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
> though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.
There is a ton of very interesting 'audio' stuff once you get away from
'domestic hifi' it seems - mainly defence and Post Office and almost all of
it going back to the good old days of valves, from what I can see of it.
There is a continual dribble of very interesting programmes on these sort of
topics on BBC 4 and BBC 2 at various, odd times which I have recorded for
me!
>
> I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
> sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
> various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
> it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
> voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
> and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
> Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
> was still perfectly intelligible.
Not my bag, but all very interesting....
Iain Churches
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7pf8d3...@mid.individual.net...
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote
>>
>> One sees that cheaper labels often have their own stand in the corner of
>> the shop, which they seem to service themselves.
>
> "One" may see that, but I haven't seen it in decades.
>
>> Budget labels.
>> Pickwick/Hallmark/Allegro, and others were doing this with vinyl in
>> the1960s.
>>
>
> Indeed they were, but ISTM that the 1960s were their heyday. Who are the
> "budget labels" today?
Naxos is the first that comes to mind.
Most classical companies have budget issues, and so if you are
not insistent upon the "latest" recording, some gems can
be found at low cost.
Iain