Hey, you've got to keep that "content" coming somehow and driving "engagement", don't you? And what's better than a little, friendly controversy, "unusual takes" and politely stated "hard truths". Unthinking "common sense" often falls for crap like this, like we see again. And actually, it's, like many have stated here, a strawman and a ton of inconsistency even in stating the problem, let alone in argumentation.
If you email her an invite, be sure and spell her name correctly. There is obviously a difference if you pixel peep, but large prints are viewed from a distance, so in the end it’s kind of pointless. I’ve made 3’ x 2’ prints from 10Mp images and they look just fine.
True, carts can make a big change in one's system. I purchased my phono pre (another potential game changer) with the plan to go LOMC. Then I stopped for a bit and looked at cost per play. Then the hassle of removing and sending off for a retip. I just couldn't justify the expense of buying something with such a low lifespan. Most of my gear was purchased with a reputation of longevity. I see carts as a regular maintenance item. Plus once I've heard one I love, I'll always have to have it to be happy. Anyhoo...I'm not knocking anyone that does this....more power to them!!!
My previous dealer always talked about 'how your system is supposed to sound like live, unamplified instruments'...he also designed speakers him self...well he was true to his mission: I once listened to one of his speakers... couldn't turn the volume down quick enough. Man they sounded bad and harsh and....all that crap . When my drums were recorded back in the day and played back through the studio monitors/system...it sounded way better than listening live to my drums! And I know which one I prefer.
You know I never really thought of it that way. When I go to live shows, I’m never thinking about the sound quality of the music. And thank god I don’t. MSG and Giants stadium can’t be very good. It’s the whole experience and one can’t capture that.
We can blame Harry Pearson for our never ending search for the absolute sound . Pearson is considered the most influential figure in the history of audiophile journalism.[1] Pearson is famous for his philosophy of judging the sound of an audio component on how closely it approximates the "absolute sound", which he defined as "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space." -- Wikipedia
Against my better judgement I watched this video. Maybe Steve is failing miserably to "get that trueness, that believable sound in our listening space," by the choices he's making in what recordings to listen to, how he's choosing to set up his system, what equipment he's buying, etc., but that's his failing, not the failing of every audiophile, not me. Of course you need to listen to recordings made with the intent of providing a believable representation of a performance in its moment in its space via two channel (or multi channel) audio. And not all recordings are made that way. Though I'm mostly a jazz and classical listener so finding those kinds of recordings is not so uncommon for me. And you need to control local room effects, because overlaying those on whatever location cues are in the recording are going to utterly mess up any sense of realness or believability. Room treatments --both absorption and diffusion -- can help here. And you need to eliminate mechanical noise and other intrusions that call attention to the fact that you're listening to equipment -- pitch instability from turntable or tape motors, tracking distortion, groove echo, surface noise, clipping, gain hiss, etc. But I have certainly found, in the end, the more one does those things with their choices, the more able one his able to get "that trueness, that believable sound in our listening space." Yes, it's not true that we've gotten to the point yet where home audio reproduction so accurately can reproduce the physical experience of real musical sound production from instruments in space in front of us, it's also not a binary question. There is definitely a spectrum between home hifi experiences that can't deliver anything real or believable at all in terms of reproducing the sensation of hearing the original sound in the original space, and those that can deliver a much more true and believable experience of that. And audiophiles can, and do, make choices that will either deliver more or less of that -- from choices about recordings to listen to to choices about equipment to use to choices about room optimization -- according to their goals, desires and preferences. So, I think the premise that we're still so far from that kind of re-creation that there's some kind of delusion going on is wrong on both counts -- I think some thing are farther from that kind of re-creation than others, and taking steps closer to that is not some kind of delusion.
I'm not arguing against live music. In fact, live music is still my favorite listening experience. But as far as accuracy, Alan Shaw voices his Harbeths using his children's and family members' voices, the sounds he knows best. In everyday life, we hear a lot of percussions, transients, deep rumbling bass when a big truck rolls down the street, guys playing sax on street corners for spare change, electronic ringtones on our phones etc. Those are real sounds, and music contains all of them. I feel I'd know good speakers even if I had never been to a concert.
One of my best system "upgrades" has been attending live events. Be it a stadium concert, small venue local band, kids recital, or maybe some other event like a wedding with a spectacular ensemble. Never, not ever even once, was the sound they produced perfectly balanced, without inclusions from every other aspect of the venue, or seamlessly intergrated into perfect pitch, tone, timbre and harmony.......There is ALWAYS something imperfect about that live event. With this in mind, I figure my system is representing that live sound quite well.
"What's Your Favorite Live Performance" is a separate issue from"What Is Your Favorite Audiophile Recording?" A person may like a particular live recording for reasons other than sound quality. There's a number of live bootlegs that are favorites of mine that don't come within a hundred miles of "audiophile" quality.
I've perfected my system to the point where every time I turn it on it sounds just like I'm right there listening to my stereo.
Another click-bait headline from Steve G. No most audiophiles are not fooling themselves. Most audiophiles (especially those who have been in the game for years) become quite familiar with what can and can't be achieved in sound systems, through their own experiments and in listening to other systems. You end up with more realistic expectations with experience, not "less realistic." There are audiophiles who don't even use live music as a reference because they just don't care to. Or those that don't use it as a reference because they feel that's an impossible goal (and maybe even not one they'd want anyway) so the just want to all they want is to "hear a recording as it is. And we have audiophiles (like myself) who DO use live sound as a reference for what we are seeking in reproduced sound. But that in no way involves "fooling oneself." In fact if you keep an ear out for the qualities of live instruments and voice, you are even more aware of how far short reproduced sound is in comparison. So I'm not "fooling myself" that I can - or necessarily want to - have sound in my room indistinguishable from live (I'd want to leave my modest-sized listening room immediately if someone set up a full drum kit and started playing full out). So rather than unrealistic beliefs I'd attain everything I hear in real instruments and voices, I simply note that some systems to me sound a bit MORE like the real thing, a bit MORE like the recognizable timbre of a sax or violin or acoustic guitar or human voice. And that since I love the luxurious timbre of real instruments, a system that gives me MORE in that direction is more compelling to me. But the point is almost nowhere on this continuum does it suggest many audiophiles are fooling themselves. Even those who look to live sound as a reference tend to be all the more acutely aware of how unrealistic perfect reproduction would be. So, yeah, this was a condescending click-baity video from Steve G. Most audiophiles are well aware of all the things he brought up. Even most of the responses in this thread point to that.
makes sense and I agree-and we're talking about sound scale more so than sound quality. you can still duplicate scale in home audio but most do not listen that way.
yes but where was the recorded bell to compare live vs reproduced? with the right recording and the right system i bet they could sound very close.
