Bros,
Happy to see cassette & cd debate. vinyls are in different league.hyeah:
Tears of happiness...
Hahahahaha... ROTFL. Good one.
True Audiophile
- Thread starter arunlouie
- Start date
Hahahahaha... ROTFL. Good one.
The best part!!
A You Tube presentation of an Abbey Road/EMI project for remastering the historic recordings of conducter Wilhelm Furtwangler. Hotly debated by Furtwangler fans and societies, most of whom don't seem to be very impressed with Abbey Road/EMI. The general consensus seems to be that remastering efforts such as these, not only filter out the 'noise' of live ambience and ancient master tapes, but they also filter out the 'essence' of music. I have been surfing extensively for many weeks trying to decide which recordings of Furtwangler to buy. EMI and DG originally recorded most Furtwangler performances, but his fans seem to prefer remastered CD's issued by smaller labels like Tahra, Audite and SWF. Only an extensive
Abbey Road engineer Simon Gibson on remastering Furtwangler - YouTube
Furtw?ngler's recordings : SWF's best choice
The Great EMI..: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music
The Legacy (107CD): Wilhelm Furtwangler, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Wilhelm Furtwngler, Berliner Philharmoniker, Wiener Philharmoniker, Chorus & Orchestra of Milan Scala, Bayreuth Festival Chorus & Orches
Furtwangler: Live Recordings 1942-1944 Vol. 2: Brahms/Schumann/Bruckner/R. Straus, Berlin Philharmonic: Amazon.co.uk: Music
Beethoven: Symphonies No. 3 5 6 7 8: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music
Edition Wilhelm Furtwangler - The Complete RIAS Recordings: Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra;Yehudi Menuhin;Gerhard Taschner, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Gluck, Strauss, Weber, Wagner, Handel et al, Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music
Furtwangler Conducts Beethoven - Beethoven: symphonies no 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9, Leonore & Coriolan overtures: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music
Nice video Ajay.
That EMT 927 was gorgeous
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Probably, most of the things you mention can be quantified, as phenomena created within the realms of the technical parameters of music reproduction. That leads me to two thoughts:
1. Why bother? You, Dr.Bass, and others, may well ask this. Is our listening space an electronics test bed? Or is it a place to enjoy music? Should the tingles be on the screen of an oscilloscope? Or in our spine?
Answers are obvious
. With good music in the ears, I am not even interested in the wattage of amp or speakers (an over-rated measure anyway!) let alone the more obscure technical stuff.There is absolutely no reason to be interested in these things whatsoever, unless a) one wants to from intellectual interest or b) one starts making claims about absolute superiority of some equipment, system or media.
In the case of "b" ... let's quote, and try to understand, discuss and argue over things that are real and quantifiable, not pseudo-psycho claptrap.
If people don't want parameters, fine: if people do, then use real ones.
The freedom to just enjoy the music is always there, as is the freedom to enjoy the shopping experience.
2. The second thought got included in "1". Poor channel separation :lol:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Dr. Bass
A link to what a few Furtwangler fans (most of them seem to prefer analogue to digital) on the Steve Hoffman music forum have to say about the latest remastering efforts of EMI/Abbey Road.
But personally after many days of nail biting confusion, I was reasonably convinced by the You Tube video, that the new EMI remastered set represents good value for money, and I have placed an order for the same.
Furtwngler EMI recordings to be reissued on Japan SACD - SH Forums
A link to what a few Furtwangler fans (most of them seem to prefer analogue to digital
) on the Steve Hoffman music forum have to say about the latest remastering efforts of EMI/Abbey Road. But personally after many days of nail biting confusion, I was reasonably convinced by the You Tube video, that the new EMI remastered set represents good value for money, and I have placed an order for the same.
Furtwngler EMI recordings to be reissued on Japan SACD - SH Forums
Dr. Bass
A link to what a few Furtwangler fans (most of them seem to prefer analogue to digital
Ya I know...
It is extremely rare someone prefer a CD to a Vinyl if he has both for a particular album.
Rhythm and timing are not some pseudo-psycho claptrap. They are the fundamental pillars which define music. If you take them away what is left is only sound which doesnt have any meaning. These attributes cannot be measured or quantified through scientific instruments, that is why there are no specs which deal with these aspects. I feel silly repeating this same thing 20th time may be.
These are the weakest areas of digital playback. There are many such things which cannot be measured beyond a certain level of granularity. For example dynamic range, while absolute DR is very easily measured but the instantaneous/momentary dynamics is that much difficult to measure. To illustrate, take for an example a simple vocal track with couple of instruments playing as accompaniments in the background, no real peaks just some smooth music. Measurably it doesnt have any content to overshoot the dynamic range of a CD but still when you listen to the same song on a SACD you do hear more "dynamics". Why ? Ok, SACD is higher resolution, so ideally you should only hear more clarity in the individual instruments but dynamics should remain the same as the CD !! It is like if you have half a kilo sugar, it doesnt matter whether you have a 10kg box or 100kg box, the sugar should comfortably fit in, isnt it ? Does these kind of simplistic measurements make sense in music reproduction ?
Last edited:
Probably, most of the things you mention can be quantified, as phenomena created within the realms of the technical parameters of music reproduction. That leads me to two thoughts:
1. Why bother? You, Dr.Bass, and others, may well ask this. Is our listening space an electronics test bed? Or is it a place to enjoy music? Should the tingles be on the screen of an oscilloscope? Or in our spine?
Answers are obvious
There is absolutely no reason to be interested in these things whatsoever, unless a) one wants to from intellectual interest or b) one starts making claims about absolute superiority of some equipment, system or media.
In the case of "b" ... let's quote, and try to understand, discuss and argue over things that are real and quantifiable, not pseudo-psycho claptrap.
If people don't want parameters, fine: if people do, then use real ones.
Good point. As a listener, we need not really bother how the music is being reproduced, though unfortunately religious-grade wars have been, are being, and will continue to be fought over it. As with all things in life, there is good and bad to all sides. And perhaps the truth makes up the third side, if ever there is an absolute truth. What one embraces and believes wholeheartedly to be the sole truth is sometimes born more from what one has access to, much like being born to a family that belongs to a particular religious affiliation. Perhaps there are other truths out there. It's just that we sometimes don't know enough. But the botheration a listener has comes from the desire for having ever better music reproduction. Some listeners are more receptive and qualified to make improvements, while the rest of us are just passive listeners. Unfortunately it is not possible to divorce the electronics from the music.
But if one were a designer of any of the components in the chain, the ability to understand, quantify, measure, add, subtract, or modify the parameter that produces, say, the tingle down the spine, on an oscilloscope or any other relevant metering device, would give one a competitive advantage like no other. And it would undoubtedly be a great advancement in audio science.
It is possible that the parameters I mentioned will eventually become understood and quantified by some clever guy. It would be indeed nice to have quantifiable and measurable parameters for all things we hear and feel about music. Till that day, we will still need to rely on pseudo-psycho claptrap (as you call it). Far from being psuedo, it is indeed psycho-acoustics, and that is not easy to quantify.
very true....!Ya I know...
It is extremely rare someone prefer a CD to a Vinyl if he has both for a particular album.
this is bingo... most people who spout numbers forget that the current ways to measure acoustics are very limited... go back 30 years and one finds the parameters were even less than what we know today...
just because we can't measure 'pace' and 'rythm' today, doesn't mean these that we don't experence them in varied amounts from equipment to equipment...
let me add 'timbreal quality'... this is one aspect of the Accuphase E 460 that totally blew me away... now how does one measure than, except for what one hears and experiences???
btw, the plain spec sheet does not show any differences when compared to other hifi gear in the same price range...
but my ears did tell me a difference.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Exactly. They are fundamental pillars which, along with pitch define music, and not sound reproduction.
I don't hesitate to admit that I am learning this stuff as I go along, and glad of the stimulus of this site to do so, so if I err, I'll be glad to be told, but...
So far as dynamic range is concerned, I am sure it very easily measurable, even for the most "instantaneous" of peaks, so long as the train up to the measuring point is capable of handling them. Ultimately, it is "measured" by a cone movement in your speaker: if that doesn't happen, the sound has no chance of reaching your ear. The speaker is the ultimate proof. No movement, no sound: any movement, even the inaudible ones, if it moved your stylus and your speaker cones, must be measurable. Even though music may transcend the spirit, sound is, after all, a physical phenomenon.
Back to the technical: If you look at the difference between digital formats, the sample rate will determine the frequency range (why? Ask Mr Nyquist!). One might also think that a higher number of samples per second must lead to finer "granulation" and better reproduction. I am not sure I can hear the difference, but have to admit that, on the basis that it only costs me disc space, I thought I might as well record at 9600/32, just in case, one day, I regret not having done so.
Bit depth, I think, determines the dynamic range. Just record some digital music: you'll see peaks you can't even hear, rather than the other way around!
Hmmm... I guess I should have asked this days agomalvai said:
--- what do you mean by pace and rhythm? I'm still inclined to think that these are simple musical terms that are misused by the hifi world, but what's your definition?People have been measuring it since for ever! Different harmonics=timbre. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that that is what makes a flute sound like a flute, and a clarinet sound like a clarinet, even though they are both playing the same note. If you tell me, then, that there is a difference between the same flute on two different speakers, differing harmonics must be present: something must have been added or subtracted.
Yes, your ears will tell you the difference, and nothing on any hifi-equipment spec sheet is going to go into that much detail ... because, I guess, that much detail doesn't matter to us: we buy the sound we like, and it is not to do with numbers. I've already said when, where and why numbers matter and should be used.
What to me, measurable or not, is nothing short of a miracle...
Is the fact that something as simple as moving speaker cones, and all the stuff that drives them, along with what went into the recording, are able, not just to go thud thud as current is applied to them, but able to reproduce something that we hear as, for instance, an entire orchestra and that, when used in pairs, that sound can even be spread out in a soundscape in front of us. I don't doubt that the technicians can explain every little part, but, when ever I think about it, I am utterly astounded that this technology exists and works at all! In the face of the fact that it does work, all the rest is just details.
Last edited:
Theoretically yes, but practically show me a measurement which has this detail !!
An instantaneous snapshot of a musical event is an extremely complex picture. It can only be comprehended in conjunction with the previous and next snapshot. Only an instrument which can comprehend "music" can actually measure the qualities of this snapshot. At this level of granularity our ears take over. You can argue only theoretically it might be measurable but practically there has been no proof of any measurements done at this micro granular level.
If such level of information was available one could have actually bought a component by only looking at the spec sheet, just like an industrial machinery is bought.
The question that remains to be answered is, if a music does not have any content exceeding 100 db dynamic range (a simple vocal), it should equally dynamic, be it CD, SACD or Blue Ray. Does that happen ?
You are absolutely right. Timbre is defined by the harmonic structure of a note. How do you measure this harmonic structure accurately ? Why do we only have THD as the only distortion spec ?
If you go back and watch the Abbey Road studio clip posted by Ajay, why does the engineer repeatedly say he wants to equalize the sound so that it sounds more "NATURAL". Is it a technical term ? He should have rather said, there is x amount of nth harmonic distortion and y amount kth harmonic distortion which needs to be rectified !! Who is more equipped than him to detect these ? Even in a recording studio they use their ears to to detect what is more "natural" otherwise there would have been no Steve Hoffman or Bernie Grundman required to produce well mastered content. Anyone with computer knowledge should have been able to detect anomalies/distortion in a recording through a software and correct it thereof !
Last edited:
reignofchaos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you can't 'sale' anything in this forum :lol:. Post reported.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
It is astonishing to know that your equipment comprehends music. How is it that one bunch of electronics comprehends music, but another doesn't. Please offer your experience to the AI guys: it will be a dream to them.
Some of this has been stimulating. I have now had enough. Enjoy the music.
If your speaker cone moved, you might have heard it. If it didn't, you couldn't. If it did, it could be measured. But you avoid nice, simple, practical considerations like this.
Some of this has been stimulating. I have now had enough. Enjoy the music.
You at least had something stimulating. For me there was none. All this while I was only trying to explain what I have experienced:indifferent14:.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Thank you and good night.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I dont think DR Bass said anywhere that the component comprehends music.
What he is essentially saying is that the brain / ear combination has the capability to comprehend extremely complex phenomena at a micro granular level. Many such phenomena do not have a corresponding paper spec.
Paper specs or most of the fully understood specs form only a foundation for an electronic component. Once this is achieved, the ear brain takes over. This is an essential reason why one should never shop for gear based on paper specs alone. Anyone who has achieved basic engineering skills and electronic knowledge can build / design music creation gear which meets paper specs but most cannot create music. A combination of extremely trained ears, purposeful intent, good taste, creativity and sound knowledge of electronics is a must.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
You're probably right. Maybe I was a little hasty in reply. Just, for one who trusts his ears so much, he doesn't seem to make a very good listener. Hey ho... anyway, I guess that conversation is over.
Absolutely agreed. In fact, the paper specs, being presented by the marketing departments, are as likely to mislead as to help. Shopping should be done entirely on personal preferences. The ears should count the most, but other senses count too. Whilst the real purist may be happy with a board with some components attached to it, for most of us, the eyes matter, and even the tactile experience matters too.
But this thread was, surely, always about principles, and not about whether amp A is better than amp B by virtue of its specs, whether they come from the brochures or are independently measured.
"It was at Black Mountain that ( John) Cage composed Water Music. Just a few days later, he made his famous visit to the anechoic chamber at Harvard, a room built to absorb sound reflections and so create absolute silence. In that silent room, as Cage never tired of explaining, I heard two sounds, one high one low. When asked what they were, the engineer in charge of the room replied that the high sound was Cages nervous system, the low one his circulation. The revelation that silence and sound werent opposites but part of a continuum, that there would always be something to listen to, was the final nudge."
Last edited:
As mentioned in post #333 here are few recording I made from 78rpm shellac. They are downsampled in mp3 format (128 kbps 44100 sample rate) and free uploaded on mailboxdrive.com. So I don't know for how many days the links will work.
1) Classical by Pandit D. V. Paluskar
Hari ke charan - D V Paluskar
2) A Marathi song based on classical raga by Suman Kalyanpur
Lapun Basli Radha - Suman Kalyanpur
3) A marathi song based on classical raga by Manik verma
Vijay Pataka - By Manik Verma
Your opinions would be highly appreciated.
Suman Kalyanpur and Manik Verma have sweet voice compared to L _ _ _ . Please do listen to them.
Regards
1) Classical by Pandit D. V. Paluskar
Hari ke charan - D V Paluskar
2) A Marathi song based on classical raga by Suman Kalyanpur
Lapun Basli Radha - Suman Kalyanpur
3) A marathi song based on classical raga by Manik verma
Vijay Pataka - By Manik Verma
Your opinions would be highly appreciated.
Suman Kalyanpur and Manik Verma have sweet voice compared to L _ _ _ . Please do listen to them.
Regards
Last edited:
paritosh
Active Member
As mentioned in post #333 here are few recording I made from 78rpm shellac. They are downsampled in mp3 format (128 kbps 44100 sample rate) and free uploaded on mailboxdrive.com. So I don't know for how many days the links will work.
1) Classical by Pandit D. V. Paluskar
Hari ke charan - D V Paluskar
2) A Marathi song based on classical raga by Suman Kalyanpur
Lapun Basli Radha - Suman Kalyanpur
3) A marathi song based on classical raga by Manik verma
Vijay Pataka - By Manik Verma
Your opinions would be highly appreciated.
Suman Kalyanpur and Manik Verma have sweet voice compared to L _ _ _ . Please do listen to them.
Regards
Hey... don't be afraid if you feel you are right. Write Lata!
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Follow HiFiMART on Instagram for offers, deals and FREE giveaways!
