Ron’s New System

[Carlos269]

I don't agree Eliot. I'm not interested in having a stereo that is designed to only show what is on the recorded media. I want a stereo that is engaging and sound good. Period.

If that means, exact reproduction of the source, so be it. But as many have noted, the sourxe material is key to enjoyable playback and much of it is crap.

I would love a stereo that was able to make crap recordings magical and engaging. I would also love a stereo that was fully digital and could integrate into any room, as well as shape the sound to what I want. Carnage Hall for classical or a miked studio for chicks with guitars. The ugly truth is, technology has been at a stand still and we are still using expensive tubes and analog media. What A Joke. Think about it. How stupid are we to be using tubes, old vinyl technology and paper driver cones. Its a shame. Maybe someone with a creative mind will show up and save us some day.

Rex, many feel like you do. It is frankly unbelievable to me that Elliot with all his years in the sale of home audio systems has not picked up on this desire from his customers. Some sales people do a lot of talking and very little listening to their customers as they often feel that they know best and know more than their customers.

 

[Carlos269]

i think an audiophile can choose what is important to them. no rules. so in that sense i agree with you. if you want to get a big hulking Receiver that has a bunch of silver buttons with various EQ curves suggesting different halls, and that floats your boat.....then good for you. that is one part of the hobby and fully legit. you have your priorities.

Tone control is precisely what you and others are doing through your choice of equipment, cables and accessories.

OTOH i agree with Elliot that ideally our systems should be able to tell us what is on each recording distinctly, while also touching us with the music. and serious audiophiles do pursue a certain natural absolute sound that is able to do justice to all types of music. customers don't come to Elliot for ultimate audio to dumb down their systems with some alternate universe. they want to hear real. and real starts with a source that is transparent. do 100% of listeners want that? obviously not. when someone does want to move the goal posts, it does cause a conflict. but it's a hobby so no big deal. have fun, don't hurt anybody....it's all good. but if you are 'selling' that alternate viewpoint, don't expect many buyers. it's a left turn from where most are going.

How do you validate and confirm that your equipment is telling you exactly what is on your recordings?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Tone control is precisely what you and others are doing through your choice of equipment, cables and accessories.

to a degree. nothing is 100% pure and neutral. over time you do the best you can.

How do you validate and confirm that your equipment is telling you exactly what is on your recordings?

over time, with thousands of recordings, and experience. no proof.

 

[Elliot G.]

I don't agree Eliot. I'm not interested in having a stereo that is designed to only show what is on the recorded media. I want a stereo that is engaging and sound good. Period.

If that means, exact reproduction of the source, so be it. But as many have noted, the sourxe material is key to enjoyable playback and much of it is crap.

I would love a stereo that was able to make crap recordings magical and engaging. I would also love a stereo that was fully digital and could integrate into any room, as well as shape the sound to what I want. Carnage Hall for classical or a miked studio for chicks with guitars. The ugly truth is, technology has been at a stand still and we are still using expensive tubes and analog media. What A Joke. Think about it. How stupid are we to be using tubes, old vinyl technology and paper driver cones. Its a shame. Maybe someone with a creative mind will show up and save us some day.

And you dont have too Rex. You can do whatever you want. I want engaging also but I don't want to color the sound. A system that makes great sound from crap is a fantasy and is definelty changing what is on the recording. If you want that thats great FOR YOU. The sound of live unamplifed music is my goal and that is to play what the recording has, sometimes I like that , sometimes I wont but at least I get to hear the artists vision not my own. If you want your own you are certainly welcome and able to do whatever you want. I m not telling anyone what to do but Carlos's universe is just a fantasy to make himself sound important. There is absolutely no accountability to what he says and remaster recordings? why not repaint the Mona Lisa, Do mods on Frank Lyold Wright. Change Bach and Beethoven or the Beatles well if that's what you want put that hot fudge on your steak, for me that's not the world I live in.
I try my best to help my clients get great sound period. I may not be the guy for everyone just as there is no ONE product that everyone likes. That's life in the real world. We sell great products but they are not the only ones. If my experience and knowldege is not sufficient for everyone I can and do live with that everyday.

 

[Elliot G.]

I would love a stereo that was able to make crap recordings magical and engaging. I would also love a stereo that was fully digital and could integrate into any room, as well as shape the sound to what I want. Carnage Hall for classical or a miked studio for chicks with guitars. The ugly truth is, technology has been at a stand still and we are still using expensive tubes and analog media. What A Joke. Think about it. How stupid are we to be using tubes, old vinyl technology and paper driver cones. Its a shame. Maybe someone with a creative mind will show up and save us some day.

funny I dont use any of those things and my sytem is all of that without making Tool sound like Taylor Swift!

 

[Carlos269]

The sound of live unamplifed music is my goal and that is to play what the recording has, sometimes I like that , sometimes I wont but at least I get to hear the artists vision not my own.

How do you validate and confirm that what is on the recordings is the artist’s intent? How do you confirm validate and confirm that the sound reaching your ears at the listing position matches what’s on the recordings?

 

[hopkins]

How do you validate and confirm that your equipment is telling you exactly what is on your recordings?

A decent headphone is going to get you a long way towards understanding what is on the recording. No headphone is perfectly neutral, and nobody agrees anyway on what neutrality is! We all hear slightly differently. But I can guarantee that for 200€ you can get a headphone that sounds much more "neutral" than some of the systems that we listen to (whether in person or in system videos).

 

[Kingrex]

i think an audiophile can choose what is important to them. no rules. so in that sense i agree with you. if you want to get a big hulking Receiver that has a bunch of silver buttons with various EQ curves suggesting different halls, and that floats your boat.....then good for you. that is one part of the hobby and fully legit. you have your priorities.

OTOH i agree with Elliot that ideally our systems should be able to tell us what is on each recording distinctly, while also touching us with the music. and serious audiophiles do pursue a certain natural absolute sound that is able to do justice to all types of music. customers don't come to Elliot for ultimate audio to dumb down their systems with some alternate universe. they want to hear real. and real starts with a source that is transparent. do 100% of listeners want that? obviously not. when someone does want to move the goal posts, it does cause a conflict. but it's a hobby so no big deal. have fun, don't hurt anybody....it's all good. but if you are 'selling' that alternate viewpoint, don't expect many buyers. it's a left turn from where most are going.

what do listeners want? few want a Carnegie Hall facsimile with every cut. remember.....it will never be what a 'live' Carnegie Hall recording would be, that you have that was recorded that way. it will be something else. a flavor. coloration. not real. real is different every time.

We are saying somewhat the same thing, but I am saying I feel like audio reproduction technology has been at a stand still for the last 50 years or more. Silver buttons and EQ curves?????? No. Not at all what I am saying. How about a sophisticated computer tied to something that doesn't even look like a speaker that projects whatever sound you want into the room. I am laughing that people are spending $1,000,000 and still are no where near a reproduction of the original experience. Or are still chasing natural and engaging. Maybe its just human psyche that drives the unending quest. And no $$$ will ever satisfy that. But technology wise, we haven't advanced much if people are still using tubes and vinyl.

 

[Kingrex]

A decent headphone is going to get you a long way towards understanding what is on the recording. No headphone is perfectly neutral, and nobody agrees anyway on what neutrality is! We all hear slightly differently. But I can guarantee that for 200€ you can get a headphone that sounds much more "neutral" than some of the systems that we listen to (whether in person or in system videos).

I have a pair of AKG and a Shiit Valhalla. I thought my headphone were only ok so I went to a store to listen. I was shocked how wildly different they all sounded. Maybe more so than what I hear from systems in a room. And frankly, a lot of what is expensive and supposed to be great sounded closed in, compressed and just awful. I walked away very satisfied with my modest headphones feeling they were some of the best I heard. My point is that a headphone is very colored and not any more likely to tell you what is going on with a Iphone video of a stereo than any other way of listening.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

why do you all even bother!?
get a life
listen to music instead of posting 500 word rants....

 

[hopkins]

I have a pair of AKG and a Shiit Valhalla. I thought my headphone were only ok so I went to a store to listen. I was shocked how wildly different they all sounded. Maybe more so than what I hear from systems in a room. And frankly, a lot of what is expensive and supposed to be great sounded closed in, compressed and just awful. I walked away very satisfied with my modest headphones feeling they were some of the best I heard. My point is that a headphone is very colored and not any more likely to tell you what is going on with a Iphone video of a stereo than any other way of listening.

Yes, there are lots of different sounding headphones. But it is much easier to test different headphones, as you did, than speakers, and you don't have room coloration. I use a few different headphones.

 

[Elliot G.]

How do you validate and confirm that what is on the recordings is the artist’s intent? How do you confirm validate and confirm that the sound reaching your ears at the listing position matches what’s on the recordings?

Because they released the record or disc into the world. There was a time that I could ask some of them back when I was in NYC but most artists care about the recordings. I am not saying they care equally and I am sure some dont care at all but most do.
Ask Peter McGrath about his recordings? Roy Hallee was a personal friend and used to come to Lyric , back in the day all the time. I heard so many early lacquers of Graceland I got sick of it. We talked about it, I listened to what he did and said. I was in his home multiple times. I sponsered clasical concerts in Florida and got to hear rehearsals and meet the artists. I spoke with them I heard what hey did and what they said.
They did not tell me to remix thier recordings, to me that is really offensive, but for you its ok.
So are you believing that a Chef doesn't care about the food he makes? An artist doesn't care about the painting he produces.
Of course trhe artists intent is on the recording its their art and their efforts. These things take a lllot of work and time to make.

Art doesn't need proof it is proof!

 

[Carlos269]

Because they released the record or disc into the world. There was a time that I could ask some of them back when I was in NYC but most artists care about the recordings. I am not saying they care equally and I am sure some dont care at all but most do.
Ask Peter McGrath about his recordings? Roy Hallee was a personal friend and used to come to Lyric , back in the day all the time. I heard so many early lacquers of Graceland I got sick of it. We talked about it, I listened to what he did and said. I was in his home multiple times. I sponsered clasical concerts in Florida and got to hear rehearsals and meet the artists. I spoke with them I heard what hey did and what they said.
They did not tell me to remix thier recordings, to me that is really offensive, but for you its ok.
So are you believing that a Chef doesn't care about the food he makes? An artist doesn't care about the painting he produces.
Of course trhe artists intent is on the recording its their art and their efforts. These things take a lllot of work and time to make.

Art doesn't need proof it is proof!

You need to learn and understand more in-depth the production process. The recordings are done by the recording engineer who tailors the sound to what he or she thinks it should be, with consultation with both the artists and the producers. The mix then gets handed over to the mix engineer who arranges and adjust the individual raw tracks to down mix them to a two-channel mix. The two-channel mix then gets handed two the mastering engineer for final polish and to make the necessary adjustments for the cutting house or for digital distribution. A lot goes on between the recording event and the final product. Even Dave McNair mentioned that there are differences between the mastering final mix version that he sends out for production and the media that is sold to the consumers.

There is no way of knowing what the recordings really sound like as the same media sounds different on every playback system. So which playback system is the reference? By definition, since there are distinct and unique interpretations from each system, there is no way to validate and confirm which of all the systems is the most accurate. If we knew that there is one systems out there that offers 100% fidelity, then we would all have that system. As much as you don’t want to hear it, each and every system plays back its own unique interpretation of the recordings.

You yourself have said that you cannot get two identical systems to sound the same in two different rooms because of the two different room acoustics, because everything matters, and because you can’t walk on water. So which of the hundreds of systems that you have sold is the one faithful to the recordings and the artists’ intent????

 

[Elliot G.]

OK first of all Carlos I don't need to learn anything from you.
Secondly I never use words like exact, identical , the same , perfect etc. Those are ypur words not mine.
We are not trying to produce one identical anything. All the sytems we do are faithful to the music , that goal we always accomplish but exact? identical? never and no one would ever set that as a goal except you. You who wants to argue about art. This is an artform there is no exact anything.
Faithfull doesnt equal identical in any way.
Of course we can know what a acoustic guitar, piano, violin sounds like all you need to do it is go see it live. I guess at NASA they don't think of those things.
We dont seek perfect and no one ever said we or I did. You love to use and twist everyones words to fit your impossible narrative. I think you are wasting your life and should be a political strategist where your talents would be useful.
Instead you want to argue that YOUR way is the only way. I dont care about your way if you want it then do it but the arogance that you have to tell everyone else that remastering the music to make up for the crappy room and set up along with bad recordings make sense is insane.


Now for my last word to you
IGNORE back on

 

[Ron Resnick]

If Ron claims that is a superior mic (Sennheiser) maybe it captured room resonance.

I am not claiming anything about the external mics. It would be my starting assumption that a pair of external Sennheiser mics should achieve a higher fidelity recording than the internal iPhone mic, that's all.

 

[Ron Resnick]

We all have our different goals and objectives.

+1

 

[bonzo75]

I am not claiming anything about the external mics. It would be my starting assumption that a pair of external Sennheiser mics should achieve a higher fidelity recording than the internal iPhone mic, that's all.

yes but you keep skipping recognition of the fact that all videos sounded similar except for the first, because recognising this upsets your biased "videos don't work view". Except for golden eared Todd who provided a very interesting analysis on the 3rd video when it was similar to the first two (I LOLed at that response), most did not hear any difference.

 

[hopkins]

I am not claiming anything about the external mics. It would be my starting assumption that a pair of external Sennheiser mics should achieve a higher fidelity recording than the internal iPhone mic, that's all.

I was curious about that - could you tell us which recorder you used with the mics.

By the way, these microphones seem to be specialized for "vocals" (so used in proximity to the "source", and highly directional). I am no expert in microphones but that may be something to consider?

 

[morricab]

How do you validate and confirm that what is on the recordings is the artist’s intent? How do you confirm validate and confirm that the sound reaching your ears at the listing position matches what’s on the recordings?

Why are you asking this when you clearly don’t validate and confirm your own system! I’m fact you “remaster” the recording (call it what you want it is a glorified tone control) and therefore there is no way it’s true to the recording…why would you now challenge others on that?

 

[Ron Resnick]

yes but you keep skipping recognition of the fact that all videos sounded similar except for the first, because recognising this upsets your biased "videos don't work view". Except for golden eared Todd who provided a very interesting analysis on the 3rd video when it was similar to the first two (I LOLed at that response), most did not hear any difference.

I haven't commented myself on the sound of the videos, so I'm not skipping recognition of anything.

In fact, please note that my question began with "If you hear any differences," (emphasis added), so I did not even begin with the assumption that people would hear differences.