trb@drux3.UUCP (Buckley) (02/03/84)
Phil Karn, Get off it! You obviously have never understood what Phil Rastocny is trying to say, and you obviously have some anti-analog bias that for some reason is clouding your judgement (not to mention your hearing). One wonders if you can really tell the difference in audio subtleties. A newcomer to wine-tasting would think two similar wines taste exactly the same. A newcomer to audio probably couldn't tell the difference between two similar high-quality systems. I think that describes you, Phil. The second-generation CDs are VERY good. Better than most analog systems. BUT, today's state-of-the-art analog is BETTER, and it makes for an enjoyable listening experience. Try it sometime. (And that goes for you, too, rabbit!jj). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Buckley ...drux3!trb
edhall@randvax.UUCP (02/07/84)
-------------------------------- I think Tom Buckley is using a false analogy. Distinguishing and appreciating fine wine takes practice, patience, and perhaps talent, along with the frequent opportunity to sample fine wines. It ain't the same in audio. If realistic reproduction is the goal of audio, then we each have the epitome of that goal presented to our ears 24 hours a day. You don't need a sound system to be a careful listener. In fact, I have a certain distrust for the opinion of someone whose greatest exposure to music is through electronic reproduction, no matter how refined the equipment. So if you want to become a better judge of *reproduced* sound, develop a good familiarity with the real thing. Spend your money on concerts, not on the latest high-cost fads in synthetic sound. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall (UUCP) edhall@rand-unix (ARPA)
mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (02/09/84)
I disagree with the following: -------------------------------- If realistic reproduction is the goal of audio, then we each have the epitome of that goal presented to our ears 24 hours a day. You don't need a sound system to be a careful listener. In fact, I have a certain distrust for the opinion of someone whose greatest exposure to music is through electronic reproduction, no matter how refined the equipment. So if you want to become a better judge of *reproduced* sound, develop a good familiarity with the real thing. Spend your money on concerts, not on the latest high-cost fads in synthetic sound. If you are trying to judge the quality of reproduction, then it behooves you well to know what things SOUND like when recorded through microphones and reproduced on speakers. When you can't SEE the performers, it is important to know what the original SOUNDED like -- and how much of the sound effect was due to the hall, etc. You need live performance if the music you listen to EXISTS on the other side of the mixing console. If you listen to Pink Floyd, you will have a hard time finding a live performance of ``The Dark Side of The Moon'', Ideally, you will get BOTH experiences. But how many of us can listen to live performance more than to recordings? Mark Terribile hou5d!mat
coltoff@burdvax.UUCP (Joel Coltoff) (02/09/84)
I do both. That is go to concerts and listen to my hi tech equipment.
Here is a point Ed Hall seems to have missed - The consistency of the
listening environment.
I can't afford the time ( or the money ) to see the entire season of the
Phila. Orchestra. When I go I don't know where I'll be sitting. ( I do
realize that in a well designed theater the acoustics should be good
everywhere.) Even if I could get the same seat everytime other factors
can influence the sound. e.g. the size and shape of the other 20,000
people in the room.
When I listen at home there are more things that remain constant. I'll sit
in the same chair ( almost always with a different book ) and the surroundings
remain relatively stable.
I can appreciate both and given that I can't see a live performance everyday,
be it the Phila Orchestra, the London Philharmonic or the Oslo What's its name,
I take the most faithful reproduction I can find.
Now a question. Does anyone have any experience with the dbx 3bx? I've
got some money burning a hole in my pocket and want to patronize my local
dealer. ( The Klipsch diamond cantilever cartridge is still out of my
price range )
--
Joel Coltoff {presby,bpa,psuvax}!burdvax!coltoff
(215)648-7258edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/12/84)
-------------------------- Consistancy of the listening environment is indeed something I didn't mention, but I fail to see how it applies. Any distortions produced by your equipment become part of that `environment', just as much as sound absorption and reflection do. And unless any of these effects cause sound you find disagreeable, you'll accept them as `natural'. It's my opinion that any audiophile who claims `golden ears' should first study psychology, and see how much expectation and previous experience affect perception. If you believe that the color of your listening room influences the sound, you'll hear exactly that. A double-blind study is the *only* way to provide an objective measure of sound quality. So far as a subjective measure of what *I* like, I prefer to compare reproduced sound with the real thing. An opinion, only. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall