On this one it compresses and thins it out too much. Not sure if it is the recording, so would be interesting to hear with GC or Opus
van den Hul Colibri Grand Cru
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
On this one it compresses and thins it out too much. Not sure if it is the recording, so would be interesting to hear with GC or Opus
Yes, but the clarity and sheer information are really excellent. Tone is a bit light or tilted up.
Thanks Tang for these three direct comparison videos. It seems the recording is just a bit thin sounding. At first I preferred the Opus because of the added body/weight/color, but after repeated listening, I now think the Opus is missing some subtle information retrieval. The sound is bold and stark, but I find it flat, even slightly dull, and lacking the subtle shading and cues and ambiance that make the Colibris sound more alive and convincing. I also think the Opus lacks some presence and space, even though that is hard to pick up through headphones. The Colibris are just a bit thin sounding to me and I would bet it is the recording because most of your other videos do not sound thin like this.
I think some will prefer the Opus because it sounds less thin, but I prefer the Colibris because of the increased amount of information, and the more nuanced and dynamic sound. Aside from the thinness, the Colibris sound more natural to me.
I think some will prefer the Opus because it sounds less thin, but I prefer the Colibris because of the increased amount of information, and the more nuanced and dynamic sound. Aside from the thinness, the Colibris sound more natural to me.
For me this shows VdH MS (and gc) are favoring highs like my MS and if this is the case A.J. was right, my cartridge plays as it should be playing. For my ears the sound is not balanced with VdHs. I hear an evident tilt from 8-10khz upwards. This was consistent with what I measured on my own MS with adjust+ as well. Yes, there is more presence, more sheen and more (high end) detail, it is also easier to differentiate venue sound but it is like a remastering favoring upper region that is bringing in those qualities. This is what "I" hear and feel like. This is my opinion.
This record has many pluses. I was using it to illustrate hall ambient altogether with rise, swing and thrill I mentioned in prior comment.
I find that I will need a system not so high resolution, round off high, and cloudy mids to play side A of this record without a hint of thinness. If you play side B of this vinyl pressing, Pictures at Exhibition, the sound will have no hint of thinness and quite spectacular comparing to side A actually. Leibowitz conducted this piece very aggressively too imo.
This is a remastered AP45 2 discs not the Chesky.
I find that I will need a system not so high resolution, round off high, and cloudy mids to play side A of this record without a hint of thinness. If you play side B of this vinyl pressing, Pictures at Exhibition, the sound will have no hint of thinness and quite spectacular comparing to side A actually. Leibowitz conducted this piece very aggressively too imo.
This is a remastered AP45 2 discs not the Chesky.
How can Opus 1 have more body than MS, but MS does not lack any body (does not have less body) than Opus 1?
Not black does not equal to white. Not white does not equal to black. When I say cartridge A has more body than cartridge B does not mean cartridge B is thin. It is a matter of degree.
Agreed. The VdH treble coloration is evident in this comparison. These videos are actually one situation where I didn't prefer MS in Tang's system. In particular, the cymbals don't sound true to life.
Brian, if you usually prefer the master signature in Tang’s system and nothing has changed except for the recording, can we then reach some conclusions about this particular recording and the way it sounds compared to other recordings in the same system? Or have the cartridges somehow changed their character?
Last edited:
Peter, when "usually prefer" constitutes a handful of compressed Youtube videos recorded by a phone mic, I don't think we can draw any meaningful conclusions. But I still enjoy listening and comparing.
Last edited:
Your comment below seems to imply that this was the one time you did not prefer the master signature cartridge in Tang’s system.
you also state that you don’t think we can draw any meaningful conclusions from these compressed videos, and yet you seem to be doing exactly that. You are drawing the conclusion that the symbols do not sound realistic. Either one can form judgments from these videos or one cannot. You seem to be switching back-and-forth.
I happen to think then if one can hear differences even on low quality videos between components when only one variable is changed, that is useful information. I happen to think that Tang’s videos are very good and revealing of certain qualities.
Tang wrote that this side of the record sounds thin to him. I made the same observation from listening to the videos and knowing how other videos of his system sound. You seem to hear things differently in this one case. I am just curious as to why. I guess you can point to the cartridge in this video but not in the others. Perhaps the cartridge changed.
Peter, I'm not taking these videos as seriously as you seem to be. I'm simply listening casually for fun and sharing what I hear. I believe that trying to arrive at meaningful or absolute conclusions in this manner is pointless. The conclusions I've reached about VdH carts are based on personal in-home experience, and time spent listening to others' systems in the flesh.
Dear Tang,
I understand this re-issue is not the Chesky. But I believe the AP45 and the Chesky are both re-issues of the same original recording.
Yes. I can agree with what Peter said - we can get useful information from these videos. However I also think the utility is relative to the person who receives the information and acts upon it. Am I willing to make a purchase decision based on what I hear from an iphone recording, or from what I hear in my friends system, or what I hear in my own system? It's your call. Am I willing to publically comment based on hearing a video, on someone else's system or my own system? Perhaps more freely than spending your own money, and it depends on what you think you are commenting on.
Here I think we'd all acknowledge that we are commenting on what we hear from a video - we are comparing sound from videos although the playback system we each use to do that varies widely. But whether we think we are comparing and commenting on components rather than video is up to the individual making the comment. The value systems in play vary. Some may consider the value of the information relative to how close or far it is to or from the originating event. I think the videos make for interesting conversation. I don't think they have universal or absolute value for each of us in the same way.
Peter, do you feel the "increased amount of information" you hear from the Colibris is consistent with the amount of information you hear live in the concert hall?
Certainly not Ron. I was simply commenting on the differences I hear from the videos. Nothing to do with live music or even how these sound live in a system. They are iPhone videos.
Then how do you know this "increased amount of information" isn't excessive and artificial detail and exaggerated leading edge transient response if you are not comparing it, in some conceptual way, to the quantity and quality of sonic information you hear live in the concert hall?
In what way are the Colibris more "natural," than the Opus 1, if you are not in some conceptual way comparing them to live music? If these videos have nothing to do with live music, then, to me, you are simply hearing "more" (a concept solely of quantity) from the Colibris than you are from the Opus, and that that evaluation is divorced from any notion of natural sound or live music.
Putting it differently, what is your notion of "natural" in this context if it has "nothing to do with live music?"
Similar threads
