The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread

[MylesBAstor]

Well, think what you like, you've probably never met AS, so you're reading & associating, coming to your conclusions within the limited confines of your own living room ... which trust me ... is not "the rest of the world".

tb1

Really? That shows how little you know-or know me.

That jackass took stuff that was sent to him with the explicit note at the very top of the letter THIS IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. Not only did this moron publish MY NOTE but left the message at the top. And this was all about his seeing ghosts in the kitchen.

 

[MylesBAstor]

... an honest appraisal.

I agree, however, sending any such component to MF could be viewed as "foolish", unless one establishes intent.

tb1

Could you prove your statement that Fremer is dishonest!

I've known Michael since we wrote for TAS back in the '90s and while I might disagree with him on things, he is always on the up and up.

 

[mep]

Frantz, you need to step back and take a deep breath.

IF you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have NEVER equated cost to performance...NEVER. In fact, I am of the opinion ( perhaps on of the few that is) that cost is irrelevant to performance. However, if you have never heard the significant differences that cables can bring to the presentation of your system, I can only say that either a) your system is not resolving enough or b) you are a little deaf. That's not trying to be condescending in any way, you may take it that way, BUT that's not the intent.

Yeah Frantz, don’t take either of those two statements as condenscending! They are strictly meant to help you grow as a person. Apparently the poster forgot or never read about the systems you have owned and are currently building all of which are in another league from what they own. So now you are either deaf or your gear is bunk. but don't take offense Frantz.

 

[A.wayne]

errr, ahh, Pardon me Gents , any Grey Poupon .... ? .......................

 

[mep]

errr, ahh, Pardon me Gents , any Grey Poupon .... ? .......................

No, but I just walked my dogs and now I have some brown poop on my shoes.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, you need to step back and take a deep breath.

IF you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have NEVER equated cost to performance...NEVER. In fact, I am of the opinion ( perhaps on of the few that is) that cost is irrelevant to performance. However, if you have never heard the significant differences that cables can bring to the presentation of your system, I can only say that either a) your system is not resolving enough or b) you are a little deaf.
That's not trying to be condescending in any way, you may take it that way, BUT that's not the intent.
OTOH, I am a little quizzical as to why your post seems to be so defensive
Lee brought up some great posts to a member, who on the face of it seemed to be simply decrying everything about high-end audio. I happened to agree with what Lee said, because that is the way this member's posts appeared to me as well.
BTW, I have NEVER heard a superb MC system...at least one that I would want to live with. If you really think about how music is presented live, IMHO it has a lot more to do with the 2ch presentation than MC. Right channel, Left channel and everything in between...including some perception of depth. Last time I looked, when I went to the symphony, I didn't hear the main clarinet player behind me, while the main flute player was in front....YMMV.

I am not talking about Price Davey not at all .. My system was resolving enough and I can tell you another person here with system to make most drool and with among the finest ears fared the same ... once knowledge was removed. I doubt you would accuse him of being a little deaf .. although at our age ( I suppose you are slightly over 50 or getting there ... then you are losing the ability to hear much in the treble like 99.999087% of humans that age ) We are losing our ability to hear the treble Last year I was quite proud of my hearing extending above 16 KHz and actually early this year I was holding great then .. recently not much above 15 KHz ...
Now about the point that the member is decrying High End Audio , those are his opinions. He actually would like High End to go to a different direction, so do I. I don't however think that present days systems bt I don't abide to the newer/more expensive better philosophy... Nothing against ARC but one has to wonder where those Ref are coming from Rf4, 5 seemingly every quarters there is a new Ref preamp or amp .. in 5 years we will be up to Ref XX .. And of course It will be sooo much better than the Ref5 .. Will it really? Has there been so much progress in circuit design the past few months? Really? OTOH I don't think present days systems are an utter failure as he does but different strokes and all that .. He has the right to post his opinions and frankly some of his make me think ... T

Now about MC.. If you ever heard the Mahler #2 Live one big surprise would be the Off scene trumpets in I think the 2 or 3rd movement they are meant to be off the front from the back.. Makes you jump.. There is NO way two channel in front will allow you to experience such .. There are also other pieces that used sund within the audience but the reality of music calls from what comes behind you and in 2-ch tey are what comes fro your room .. you would admit that a discrete way to reproduce these would potentially be better? No? To me the debate is theoretical. I will invest in 2-ch but I am keeping in mind that MC is potentially better ...

it's all good , wasn't defensive at all or didn't think I was or anything just posted a point of view ... That not hearing diferences with cables should NOT be equated to a deaf or a know nothing person that 's all

 

[rbbert]

Mixed in among the ad hominen attacks and other digressions, awhile back there was brief (actual audio) discussion about the merits (or lack of) of Class D amplification. Haven't we had another thread praising the Devialet Class D amp?

 

[Gregadd]

drum kit


Bias recording

 

[A.wayne]

Digression drum kit ....

IMO, MC Audio doesnt work , really good two channel produces better dimensionality and imaging , MC work for movie's due to the visual effect ....

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My suspicion, to be proved wrong when SoundMinded responds, is that he (assuming male) believes that since live music can never be faithfully duplicated over a reproduction system, all the twists and turns of 'audiophilia' amount to nonsense, marketing gimmicks, and the gullibility of high-end hi-fi enthusiasts. Accepting this premise, much of the time and effort, let alone money, devoted to high end audio is basically pointless.
I accept the premises for the most part: (1) that live is impossible to duplicate and (2) that there is a lot of nonsense in the marketing; but, I still think there are systems that can do a better job than others in attempting to create the illusion. And that doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of money spent since so much is room, set-up and synergy.
If I understood Tim's point, it is that 'live recordings' are often worse than studio recordings- they don't have quite the immediacy and often have an aura of the original room acoustic that complicates things when being played back in the listening room.
I think SoundMinded will find that a lot of us do get out to listen to live music and quite a few here play instruments.
So, I'm interested in SoundMinded's response as well.

Not quite. Many live recordings are great recordings. Many studio recordings are tragically over-processed and disconnected from the performances that make them (though many are also great). The point was that even the best live recordings do not capture what Soundminded hears from his favorite seat in the concert hall; they do not even intend to, and if they did, the acoustic processing of his brain would still make them very different. Therefore, comparing the two experiences is pointless; it's a false reference.

It's an old point. My apologies for the repetition, but as long as people persist in presenting the false reference of "live" as the benchmark, I think the point is worth repeating. In another thread on the forum, some folks are talking about how deep bass reproduction gives a system more than extension, that it seems to contribute more than its share to recreating the space the music was recorded in. I seriously doubt that. The way music is recorded, and the effort that is required to control bass response in our listening rooms would indicate that, if anything, that very deep bass may define the sense of the space we listen in, but not the one the music was recorded in.

By the way, recognizing that deep bass excites the resonances of the listening room, not the recording room, does not mean that I think deep bass extension is pointless; I wish I had the space for it. And believing that the physical and psychoacoustic differences between listening and recording make capturing the live listening experience impossible and render using live as a reference unrealistic does not mean that I think the pursuit of great audio is pointless. In that regard, my position has never changed: I believe in the pursuit of high fidelity, not high end. They often, but not always, coexist.

Tim

 

[Soundminded]

Hello Sound

Reading most of your posts it seems to me that I have never once seen a comment by you wherein you actually like recorded music. For the record, is there any recorded music which you do like and to help us understand perhaps you could give us a brief background of your music education. I apologize if you have done this elsewhere but for me at least, I feel that this would add credence to many of your postulates. You continue to always knock recorded music and I am amiss to understand what you are all about. Suffice it to say that IMO you are preaching to the choir here with your comments between live vs recorded music. Is there a point somewhere that I am missing. Can you also give us a brief synopsis of your sound system

Steve, of course I like recorded music. If I didn't, why would I be posting here? Why would I have a library of over 6000 recordings? I don't really know how many there actually are anymore, I lost track of them a long time ago. I've been listening to both live and recorded music all of my life. I've also played musical instruments, the piano and clarinet...badly. I'm thinking of going back to playing the piano again though. I might even go back to taking lessons. I've been surrounded by amateur and professional musicians all of my life. Some of the professionals were world famous recording and performing artists. I've become accostomed to judging music and sound by the highest standards there are. Have you ever heard of the game "drop the needle?" Usually it's played where someone plays part of a recording and you have to identify what piece it is. In my house when I was growing up it was; who is the performer? I only took one formal music course in college but it was a doozie (I went to a very tough school.) It wasn't merely a music appreciation class, I had to compose music too and my grade was based on the quality of what I composed including chords and composing a fugue so I've studied some music theory. I've also been surrounded with and worked with scientists and engineers all of my life. I'm an engineer myself but I do not work in the audio industry.

"You continue to always knock recorded music"

I don't think I've ever knocked recorded music, at least not a whole lot although that's a can of worms that I could open. However I view recorded music as a facsimile, not as music itself. I break recordings into two categories. What I call "documented recordings" are attempts to recreate a real or hypothetical experience as it would have been heard live. What I call "recordings of manufactured music" is an attempt to create a recording that has no possible analog to a real world event but is pleasing and therefore marketable. We are all customers in the markets for both types but the first type is what interests me most. I acknowledge that in each era, recording engineers have tried hard to produce the best recordings of both kinds the technology they've had available to them makes possible. I take no issue with that. My criticism is directed at the playback technology. I think it has gone in the wrong direction and could do much better.

The sound system I listen to at home mostly is an experimental prototype based on my own entirely different analysis of the problem of acoustics and sound reproduction. Suffice it to say it does not sound like anything you can buy for money. It operates on an entirely novel set of principles and follows its own rules. There's nothing I've seen or heard I'd ever consider trading it for. It is without doubt one of the most exasperating machines I've ever encountered, a nightmare to adjust and it must be adjusted for each recording. This process can take days, weeks, even months. I'm resigned to fact that it's not likely a commercial product will ever result from it as no one I've contacted has ever shown any interest in it. Is it worth it? I wouldn't have been tinkering with it for nearly 40 years if I thought it wasn't.

 

[Bill Hart]

Not quite. Many live recordings are great recordings. Many studio recordings are tragically over-processed and disconnected from the performances that make them (though many are also great). The point was that even the best live recordings do not capture what Soundminded hears from his favorite seat in the concert hall; they do not even intend to, and if they did, the acoustic processing of his brain would still make them very different. Therefore, comparing the two experiences is pointless; it's a false reference.

It's an old point. My apologies for the repetition, but as long as people persist in presenting the false reference of "live" as the benchmark, I think the point is worth repeating. In another thread on the forum, some folks are talking about how deep bass reproduction gives a system more than extension, that it seems to contribute more than its share to recreating the space the music was recorded in. I seriously doubt that. The way music is recorded, and the effort that is required to control bass response in our listening rooms would indicate that, if anything, that very deep bass may define the sense of the space we listen in, but not the one the music was recorded in.

By the way, recognizing that deep bass excites the resonances of the listening room, not the recording room, does not mean that I think deep bass extension is pointless; I wish I had the space for it. And believing that the physical and psychoacoustic differences between listening and recording make capturing the live listening experience impossible and render using live as a reference unrealistic does not mean that I think the pursuit of great audio is pointless. In that regard, my position has never changed: I believe in the pursuit of high fidelity, not high end. They often, but not always, coexist.

Tim

Tim, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. And do agree that lot's of over-processing often comes with studio recorded stuff. The scenario you were describing is typical of bootlegs, and they often sound as I described, distant, echo-y; some live recordings are very good, but done through much more elaborate set-ups and I would presume close miking, big mixer, less room sound (except what's mixed in); even then, the magic is in the performance, because the musicians sometimes 'cook' better in front of an audience.
The idea that you could have been at the actual performance and then compared it to a recording has so many layers I'm not sure it's a meaningful either, if you are trying to pin down 'exactly' what was heard in the venue and use that as a reference; aside from sonic 'memory,' mike placement compared to your seat in the hall (see above), and how it is mixed, how often does that occasion arise? I doubt most classical performances these days are recorded, even at Carnegie Hall; for pop/rock, if it is a commercial recording at a big venue, the sound at most big venues is pretty horrible live. (I'm thinking here of Led Zepp at 02- my bet is the recording sounds better than what i heard in that hall although the performances were amazing); jazz might be the ticket, but again, how many live recordings are done in decent rooms these days? (I spent some time at Ronnie Scotts where there were recordings made 30 years ago, but god knows if I could remember what the performance really sounded like at this point).
I suppose, with access to a really high quality recording rig in a controlled environment and a simple recording without a lot of post production/processing, you might be able to do a 'live vs. memorex' test. But you are still going to hear the artifacts of the recording process, sound of the mike, recording medium, etc. I haven't really done this at home, although I'm hoping to have just that opportunity once I get set up in Austin, eventually.
I do value knowing what real instruments sound like, but that's not a direct comparison to a particular performance or even the same exact instrument. It's just that I have a pretty good notion of what a cello or name your instrument actually sounds like in reality, in the most general way.
As to the rest re SoundMinded's views, we have to wait for him to respond, as I said, I was speculating on his views, just as I was yours.
regards,
bill
PS Having said all that, it might be interesting to get the views of Bruce or some of the others here who have studios and can speak to what they hear in a 'natural' recording vs being in the room, although they aren't really 'in the room' either, are they?

 

[Bill Hart]

Steve, of course I like recorded music. If I didn't, why would I be posting here? Why would I have a library of over 6000 recordings? I don't really know how many there actually are anymore, I lost track of them a long time ago. I've been listening to both live and recorded music all of my life. I've also played musical instruments, the piano and clarinet...badly. I'm thinking of going back to playing the piano again though. I might even go back to taking lessons. I've been surrounded by amateur and professional musicians all of my life. Some of the professionals were world famous recording and performing artists. I've become accostomed to judging music and sound by the highest standards there are. Have you ever heard of the game "drop the needle?" Usually it's played where someone plays part of a recording and you have to identify what piece it is. In my house when I was growing up it was; who is the performer? I only took one formal music course in college but it was a doozie (I went to a very tough school.) It wasn't merely a music appreciation class, I had to compose music too and my grade was based on the quality of what I composed including chords and composing a fugue so I've studied some music theory. I've also been surrounded with and worked with scientists and engineers all of my life. I'm an engineer myself but I do not work in the audio industry.

"You continue to always knock recorded music"

I don't think I've ever knocked recorded music, at least not a whole lot although that's a can of worms that I could open. However I view recorded music as a facsimile, not as music itself. I break recordings into two categories. What I call "documented recordings" are attempts to recreate a real or hypothetical experience as it would have been heard live. What I call "recordings of manufactured music" is an attempt to create a recording that has no possible analog to a real world event but is pleasing and therefore marketable. We are all customers in the markets for both types but the first type is what interests me most. I acknowledge that in each era, recording engineers have tried hard to produce the best recordings of both kinds the technology they've had available to them makes possible. I take no issue with that. My criticism is directed at the playback technology. I think it has gone in the wrong direction and could do much better.

The sound system I listen to at home mostly is an experimental prototype based on my own entirely different analysis of the problem of acoustics and sound reproduction. Suffice it to say it does not sound like anything you can buy for money. It operates on an entirely novel set of principles and follows its own rules. There's nothing I've seen or heard I'd ever consider trading it for. It is without doubt one of the most exasperating machines I've ever encountered, a nightmare to adjust and it must be adjusted for each recording. This process can take days, weeks, even months. I'm resigned to fact that it's not likely a commercial product will ever result from it as no one I've contacted has ever shown any interest in it. Is it worth it? I wouldn't have been tinkering with it for nearly 40 years if I thought it wasn't.

Nice post, SM. What do you use for source material on your system? (The idea that it takes weeks to adjust for each recording is a little disturbing, but perhaps no less insane than what some of us do in tweaking.) Can you disclose more of what your system is/does without giving up anything you consider proprietary?
thanks.
Bill hart

 

[Soundminded]

My suspicion, to be proved wrong when SoundMinded responds, is that he (assuming male) believes that since live music can never be faithfully duplicated over a reproduction system, all the twists and turns of 'audiophilia' amount to nonsense, marketing gimmicks, and the gullibility of high-end hi-fi enthusiasts. Accepting this premise, much of the time and effort, let alone money, devoted to high end audio is basically pointless.
I accept the premises for the most part: (1) that live is impossible to duplicate and (2) that there is a lot of nonsense in the marketing; but, I still think there are systems that can do a better job than others in attempting to create the illusion. And that doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of money spent since so much is room, set-up and synergy.
If I understood Tim's point, it is that 'live recordings' are often worse than studio recordings- they don't have quite the immediacy and often have an aura of the original room acoustic that complicates things when being played back in the listening room.
I think SoundMinded will find that a lot of us do get out to listen to live music and quite a few here play instruments.
So, I'm interested in SoundMinded's response as well.

"My suspicion, to be proved wrong when SoundMinded responds, is that he (assuming male) believes that since live music can never be faithfully duplicated over a reproduction system"

I never said that. What I have said is that it can't be done the way this industry is going about it. Perfecting what it already has won't be good enough. I think it is lamentable that in an era when technology has been advancing and changing very rapidly in virtually all other areas I can think of, there is an industry which is so conservative its products don't really change much not just from year to year but from decade to decade. This speaks to not just an unwillingness or inability to attack a problem at its fundamentals, to challenge old assumptions but to a market that is equally complacent accepting whatever that industry produces. Real progress does not come from me-too ism.

There are some things this industry does extremely well. It can store and reproduce analog electrical signals in various forms without audible distortions to the degree required cheaply and reliably. It can amplify and contol those signals very well cheaply and reliably. What it can't do is produce sound fields from recordings that sound like music, at least not to my ears. In that regard, it doesn't seem to be even acknowledging it has a problem let alone making a serious attempt at solving it. No amount of tweaking of what it can do can make up for what it can't. Calling this class of product "high end audio" is not my definition of it, it a name invented by others I don't entirely accept. So this leads to an important question; why is it necessary or even desirable to duplicate the sound of live music. For me the answer is that at its best, it is extremely pleasing to hear. That's what makes it worth the effort. You can't pour grain alcohol into a glass of grape juice and convince me it tastes just as good as Chateau Laffitte Rothschild.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

"My suspicion, to be proved wrong when SoundMinded responds, is that he (assuming male) believes that since live music can never be faithfully duplicated over a reproduction system"

I never said that. What I have said is that it can't be done the way this industry is going about it. Perfecting what it already has won't be good enough. I think it is lamentable that in an era when technology has been advancing and changing very rapidly in virtually all other areas I can think of, there is an industry which is so conservative its products don't really change much not just from year to year but from decade to decade. This speaks to not just an unwillingness or inability to attack a problem at its fundamentals, to challenge old assumptions but to a market that is equally complacent accepting whatever that industry produces. Real progress does not come from me-too ism.

There are some things this industry does extremely well. It can store and reproduce analog electrical signals in various forms without audible distortions to the degree required cheaply and reliably. It can amplify and contol those signals very well cheaply and reliably. What it can't do is produce sound fields from recordings that sound like music, at least not to my ears. In that regard, it doesn't seem to be even acknowledging it has a problem let alone making a serious attempt at solving it. No amount of tweaking of what it can do can make up for what it can't. Calling this class of product "high end audio" is not my definition of it, it a name invented by others I don't entirely accept. So this leads to an important question; why is it necessary or even desirable to duplicate the sound of live music. For me the answer is that at its best, it is extremely pleasing to hear. That's what makes it worth the effort. You can't pour grain alcohol into a glass of grape juice and convince me it tastes just as good as Chateau Laffitte Rothschild.

please describe for all of us the specific in home reproduction system that has come closest to meeting your expectations. it matters not your degree of disappointment. simply what got closest.

all your lamentations need a context.

thanks.

 

[mep]

The sound system I listen to at home mostly is an experimental prototype based on my own entirely different analysis of the problem of acoustics and sound reproduction. Suffice it to say it does not sound like anything you can buy for money. It operates on an entirely novel set of principles and follows its own rules. There's nothing I've seen or heard I'd ever consider trading it for. It is without doubt one of the most exasperating machines I've ever encountered, a nightmare to adjust and it must be adjusted for each recording. This process can take days, weeks, even months. I'm resigned to fact that it's not likely a commercial product will ever result from it as no one I've contacted has ever shown any interest in it. Is it worth it? I wouldn't have been tinkering with it for nearly 40 years if I thought it wasn't.

Is Frank back? I was having some déjà vu with Frank’s HTIAB and the never ending tinkering.

 

[rbbert]

Nevertheless, when you really think about it don't most people here basically agree with Soundminded? Certainly those audiophiles in any way into vintage would agree. Even those of us who prefer modern equipment will most likely agree that improvements over the last 30+ years are incremental at best and haven't brought us dramatically closer to reproduced sound equalling live sound.

 

[Gregadd]

I for one do not believe that

 

[Bill Hart]

"My suspicion, to be proved wrong when SoundMinded responds, is that he (assuming male) believes that since live music can never be faithfully duplicated over a reproduction system"

I never said that. What I have said is that it can't be done the way this industry is going about it. Perfecting what it already has won't be good enough. I think it is lamentable that in an era when technology has been advancing and changing very rapidly in virtually all other areas I can think of, there is an industry which is so conservative its products don't really change much not just from year to year but from decade to decade. This speaks to not just an unwillingness or inability to attack a problem at its fundamentals, to challenge old assumptions but to a market that is equally complacent accepting whatever that industry produces. Real progress does not come from me-too ism.

There are some things this industry does extremely well. It can store and reproduce analog electrical signals in various forms without audible distortions to the degree required cheaply and reliably. It can amplify and contol those signals very well cheaply and reliably. What it can't do is produce sound fields from recordings that sound like music, at least not to my ears. In that regard, it doesn't seem to be even acknowledging it has a problem let alone making a serious attempt at solving it. No amount of tweaking of what it can do can make up for what it can't. Calling this class of product "high end audio" is not my definition of it, it a name invented by others I don't entirely accept. So this leads to an important question; why is it necessary or even desirable to duplicate the sound of live music. For me the answer is that at its best, it is extremely pleasing to hear. That's what makes it worth the effort. You can't pour grain alcohol into a glass of grape juice and convince me it tastes just as good as Chateau Laffitte Rothschild.

SM- thanks for responding, as I said, I was speculating on your position and inviting you to respond, which you did.
On the merits, you aren't just demanding a paradigm shift but a wholesale change in how we reproduce music in the home. Leaving aside whether the industry itself could or ever would do that (we saw progress with digital but as a mainstream 'product,' quality went backwards with MP3, and the stuff that's probably better enters into that 'high end' realm ,even if it is 'beer budget' hi-end).
But, what's a mother to do? We are not all inventors, and most of us aren't even real DIY'ers- much as i admire the ethos of DIY and understand, in a sketchy way, it's place in the history of home hi-fi. We depend, by and large, on commercial products designed and made by others that are largely compatible, at least in terms of basic connections between components. We rely on source material that is produced and distributed by others.
So, as much as I'm interested in the system you described in general terms in your other response, I'm not sure you can fault either the home enthusiast, or to a large degree, the manufacturers of the equipment (or even for that matter, what's left of the recorded music distribution business) for modest changes to the same basic designs, circuits and formats.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Nevertheless, when you really think about it don't most people here basically agree with Soundminded? Certainly those audiophiles in any way into vintage would agree. Even those of us who prefer modern equipment will most likely agree that improvements over the last 30+ years are incremental at best and haven't brought us dramatically closer to reproduced sound equalling live sound.

Except for discrete multichannel.