When did SQ start meaning sound quantity???
08-28-2006, 02:03 PM
#11
Originally Posted by mike bisson
Very Interesting; however, I have also done tests comparing "regular cd"/Burned CD/MP3/WMA/ACC/Dolby Digital/DTS/SACD/DVD-Audio and on and on.
First Off, let me say I don't think it is an issue of "good" or "bad" but rather replication of a performance.
Secondly, while both Dolby Digital and DTS can be enjoyable formats to watch Movies in -- when you compare the two DTS seems to have more "there" there.
In addition, one example of where compression formats and in some cases even burned cds seem to lack substance is in the reproduction of harmonics. A rock track that comes to mind is the Black Crowes' "She Talks to Angels". The track features Rich Robinson on acoustic guitar in the introduction of the song during which he plays a harmonic and it really comes out as something special on a good system -- in fact I have met people who think that CDs do not do justice to harmonics...(which is the reason SACD and DVD-Audio were invented). When you compare 2 channel CD A/B to a remastered 2 channel SACD or DVD-Audio in the case of the new higher resolution formats, there is more "there, there".
To my mind, many proponents of MP3 and the other compressed format are saying that they are "good enough" but if many of todays listeners have not heard proper HiFi, how do they know what they are missing?
A good recording can bring you into the middle of the performance and provide you with an experience that connects with you.
Is is not somewhat contradictory for people to swear that one headunit/amp/speaker/sub is better than another headunit/amp/speaker/sub when the actual track they are listening to is not of high quality?
First Off, let me say I don't think it is an issue of "good" or "bad" but rather replication of a performance.
Secondly, while both Dolby Digital and DTS can be enjoyable formats to watch Movies in -- when you compare the two DTS seems to have more "there" there.
In addition, one example of where compression formats and in some cases even burned cds seem to lack substance is in the reproduction of harmonics. A rock track that comes to mind is the Black Crowes' "She Talks to Angels". The track features Rich Robinson on acoustic guitar in the introduction of the song during which he plays a harmonic and it really comes out as something special on a good system -- in fact I have met people who think that CDs do not do justice to harmonics...(which is the reason SACD and DVD-Audio were invented). When you compare 2 channel CD A/B to a remastered 2 channel SACD or DVD-Audio in the case of the new higher resolution formats, there is more "there, there".
To my mind, many proponents of MP3 and the other compressed format are saying that they are "good enough" but if many of todays listeners have not heard proper HiFi, how do they know what they are missing?
A good recording can bring you into the middle of the performance and provide you with an experience that connects with you.
Is is not somewhat contradictory for people to swear that one headunit/amp/speaker/sub is better than another headunit/amp/speaker/sub when the actual track they are listening to is not of high quality?
08-28-2006, 03:46 PM
#12
0 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8
Agreed
Veeman,
I agree with your last statement completely. It is the quest for perfection by those who seek it that ultimately leads to higher quality products for the masses to enjoy. Many car companies brag about their racing heritage and how it breeds better products which eventually filter down into the mass produced, ordinary cars that they also produce. Speaker companies use this same strategy, and while it is a lot of marketing hype, it is also partly the truth.
I say that I want the best sound money can buy, but what I actually mean is that I want the best sound MY money can buy. The relentless pursuit of a better quality product leads to innovations in materials, design, and cost-savings measures that can and will ultimately benefit us all in the end, no matter what our individual budget is.
I agree with your last statement completely. It is the quest for perfection by those who seek it that ultimately leads to higher quality products for the masses to enjoy. Many car companies brag about their racing heritage and how it breeds better products which eventually filter down into the mass produced, ordinary cars that they also produce. Speaker companies use this same strategy, and while it is a lot of marketing hype, it is also partly the truth.
I say that I want the best sound money can buy, but what I actually mean is that I want the best sound MY money can buy. The relentless pursuit of a better quality product leads to innovations in materials, design, and cost-savings measures that can and will ultimately benefit us all in the end, no matter what our individual budget is.
08-28-2006, 11:36 PM
#13
Originally Posted by Folk128
I always thought that if you are truly an audiophile and would stop nowhere at getting the best possible sound. Why wouldn’t you get your stereo out of your tin box for a car and have it in a proper listening room?
I was thinking the other day that I have to really start taking more care of my ears so I can truly enjoy HiFi when I’m older (have the money) and move to home theater.
What do you guys think? Or am I just in the wrong forum? HAHA
I was thinking the other day that I have to really start taking more care of my ears so I can truly enjoy HiFi when I’m older (have the money) and move to home theater.
What do you guys think? Or am I just in the wrong forum? HAHA
yea taking care of your ears is a pretty good idea. I don't think a little loud music is gonna kill you though, it's loud distortion that's more harmful.
08-29-2006, 03:14 PM
#14
Originally Posted by veeman
I guess our idea of SQ is a little different. I don't need to be "there", as I'm a fan of engineered music much more than live performances. The only thing that appeals to me at live performances is the energy and impact of the music, and the audience. As far as those harmonics are concerned, that's probably a valid point, and may be detectable in a quiet setting with very high resolution equipment. Ultimately, as long as I can reproduce the medium (cd, tape, record, digital file) to the point of being indistinguishable from the original in my environment (meaning where and on what I listen to it) with my ears, then that's as SQ as I need. If I have to spend 100,000 to hear that something extra...I'll just live without it. How do I know that I'm not missing even more with that 1 million dollar system? Where does it end? Anyway, good luck with your quest for perfection, it is that attitude that produces great porducts that eventually trickles down to give everyone good, mass produced components.
08-29-2006, 04:15 PM
#15
Originally Posted by fatty matty
^^ - I agree 100%. That is why I only play CD's (not burned). To me there is a world of difference between MP3 and especially satelite radio. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
08-29-2006, 06:04 PM
#16
Originally Posted by Folk128
A burnt CD made from an original would be loseless. Now burned cds from mp3s are a very different story.
In the case of a burned CD the problem is not always "loss" but the fact that most Computer (as opposed to consumer) CD burners do not burn that deeply and sometimes a CD player may not track these CDs as well as a "commercially" burned CD.
08-30-2006, 12:00 AM
#17
Originally Posted by Folk128
A burnt CD made from an original would be loseless. Now burned cds from mp3s are a very different story.
Unless it was ripped to the hard-drive then burnt, like many people do these days, myself included.
A little off topic but I lived in Bowmanville most of my life, who are you?
