| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
oliverstoned 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
 Posted: March 30 2006 at 01:26 |
 the man machine wrote:
Sorry to put it bluntly, but it would appear that oliverstoned has fallen
aprey to the marketing (Lies.) spread by companies and perpetuated by
the audiophile.
|
As bluntly, it seems that you don't know what you're talking about and never heard what a good system can do (not necessarly very expensive).
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 01:56 |
All that matters for me is: - You can enjoy music on any system - analog/digital, crappy/expensive, doesn't matter
- It's much more important WHAT you play, not what you play it ON
- Audiophiles resent listening tests more than sceptics ... this shows that the difference cannot be that great. If it was, a listening test would not pose any problem. So why bother spending a lot of cash on a very small difference (if it exists at all)?
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 03:34 |
The small difference is for example the difference between a vague buzzing as a bass line on one side, and a powerful, bass line where you can hear and feel each note in your body, and as if the bass player is in the room. The difference between a harsh and confuse highs where there are instruments missing and clear, transparent highs with moving voices, violins or trumpets for example.
If some people -audiophiles- manage to have nice highs -thanks to tube amps mostly-, very few optmize enough to manage to reach a powerful and dynamic low. To reach that, power and vibration cancelling optimization is essential.
As you see, despite your painful comments, i remain cool and phlegmatic as i have new responsabilies on this site and so i must show the good example...
AUM 
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 04:46 |
oliverstoned wrote:
The small difference is for example the difference between a vague buzzing as a bass line on one side, and a powerful, bass line where you can hear and feel each note in your body, and as if the bass player is in the room. The difference between a harsh and confuse highs where there are instruments missing and clear, transparent highs with moving voices, violins or trumpets for example.
|
That is mainly a question of volume and speaker diameter (sound pressure). The cheap Logitech 5.1 system that I bought a few weeks ago has an amazing presence and brilliance ... you actually hear much more detail than with my old (and not cheap) Harman-Kardon hi-fi system. I know that you don't like both of these ... but let me assure you that neither of them produces "vague buzzing" for bass lines. And together with the X-Fi Crystalizer (which is essentially doing what musical CD players do to the signal) there are also no problems in the "highs". Sure, a system that costs 100 times more will sound better. but not 100 times better!
oliverstoned wrote:
If some people -audiophiles- manage to have nice highs -thanks to tube amps mostly-, very few optmize enough to manage to reach a powerful and dynamic low. To reach that, power and vibration cancelling optimization is essential.
As you see, despite your painful comments, i remain cool and phlegmatic as i have new responsabily on this site and so i must show the good example...
AUM |
I try to make my comments as painless as possible. 
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 04:57 |
...try to remain cool
AUM
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:08 |
^ the problem is that you (or audiophiles in general) say that my system "cannot" sound good. On the otherhand I've yet to meet a sceptic who says that audiophile systems "cannot" sound good. On the contrary ... I'm sure that 99% of all sceptics would agree that these systems sound great!
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:10 |
|
It can't "push walls" as mine does...
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:17 |
oliverstoned wrote:
It can't "push walls" as mine does... |
Now that's definitely a mere question of volume.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:32 |
|
|
|
the man machine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 138
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:06 |
|
throughout the whole process of recording a record i beleive that the
accuracy of the recording and editing hardware and software will be the
limiting factor . so if the aim of being an audiophile is faithful
reproduction then surely that is not possible due to problems at the
recording stage.
that was really a question not a statement!
|
|
the man machine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 138
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:10 |
|
i would not claim that audiophile products are necissarily overpriced
boxxes of magic . it just appears like there is very little scientific evidence
to back claims up furthermore i think another question to ask would be :
how "accurate" are your ears in collecting the sound produced by your
system? what factors alter the sound? should you voraciously clean your
ears before each listen to get the best sound!!?
it all seems a bit religious to me.
|
|
the man machine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 138
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:14 |
|
oh yes and what does "push walls" actually mean?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:29 |
A U M
To breathe...slowly...calm down
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:35 |
oliverstoned wrote:
A U M
To breathe...slowly...calm down |
So your system makes the walls shake at low volume?
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:50 |
|
I woul drather say that at medium level, the image pushes the wall. Although i need to optimize more to "push the walls" more. (Power optimization in my case).
It's hard to describe, but ther's so much dynamic and the image is so large that i'm at the heart of the sound (3D effect). On Cd moreover.
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21106
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 08:13 |
^ I guess our definitions of "medium" volume differ. I'm mostly listening at volume levels which wouldn't make your neighbor come over and ask you to turn it down.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 11:46 |
the man machine wrote:
i would not claim that audiophile products are necissarily overpriced
boxxes of magic . it just appears like there is very little scientific evidence
to back claims up furthermore i think another question to ask would be :
how "accurate" are your ears in collecting the sound produced by your
system? what factors alter the sound? should you voraciously clean your
ears before each listen to get the best sound!!?
it all seems a bit religious to me. |
The issue is the result not the theories.
Good tubes amp works, good cables works -while bad ones downgrade-, power optimization and vib cancelling are essential issues. Few are aware of that, even among audiophiles.
When you know and that put all together you can reach an incredible result. These are facts. Everybody who listen reacts the same way when listening my system (audiophiles or non-audiophiles but music lovers).
But i don't ask you to trust me on my speech. That's normal to have doubts when you didn't hear. You would understand what all is about just by listening.
Some PA forum members may listen to my system in a near future and testify.
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
the man machine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 138
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 12:06 |
|
would you agree with me in saying that it seems like audiophiles can be
very eliteist and often claim that a lesser system is incapable but in reality
the user of that system does not know any better so what difference does
it make?
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: March 30 2006 at 12:35 |
|
Indeed, you can't be frustrated by the lack of something you doesn't know.
And as says Mike, you can enjoy music even on the worst equipment...as long as you haven't heard better.
That what's dangerous with Hifi and there's the risk to become a junky abble of everything to get his 1000€ power cable, cause it transfigurates its system.
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
2.1 speaker system
