Let me just say that some people have better musical IQ meaning know what real Live un-amplified music sounds like and please don't give me that crap about... I play musical instruments and know how they sound...I am around people that play music and when you talk about reproducing what was recorded most if not almost always these people do not have a clue and would/will be happy with computer speakers or there audio system in there car... thinking they are just fine
Let me also just say that I am not a good writer.. but if you would like to communicate with me in a more intelligent manner I would be happy to give you my number
Things need to change people get educated and learn how and what to listen for...I have a paper that describes how each musical instruments sounds the vowels and consonants along with there color..... if we keep going and using the same ol BS ways to communicate how our music playback systems sound/reproduce music we will never move forward..
I hope this makes sense
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Plenty of saxophones in a jazz big band. They generally do sit in front of the trumpet section or the trombones if such are present. I hear big bands live all the time in the DC area; I try not to miss such performances, because I do love the sound of a big band playing jazz. Or do you turn up your nose at the idea of jazz? Frankly, your taste in music and mine are irrelevant to this discussion. Please try another line of argument.
Banquo, Your logic is not so different from Raul's, when he responded to my description of the Grace Ruby as "musical". It feels like you are trying to turn my own statement against me by inferring that I am actually after some artificially pleasing result. (In fact, all of audio reproduction in the home is in pursuit of artifice, but I would leave that aside here.) Every Monday night you can go to the Bohemian Caverns on U Street in Washington, DC, and hear their house band playing live, unamplified music. No microphones. I submit to you that there is a very real sense of depth and musical space conveyed by the acoustics of the club itself. Ergo, I do not accept yours or Larry's thesis that there is no sense of 3D-ness in live performance. in many cases of live performance, we are actually listening to huge speakers placed above and beside the stage, superimposed upon the direct radiations of the instruments; this can indeed destroy the dimensionality of the image, if not done well. |
Lharasim,
I don't understand what it is that you don't understand?
If you agree "that there is some location of where a group or an instruments location is", then you are excepting the fact that there is 3D! It's either flat or 3D. Perhaps it is you definitation of what 3D is? I do admit, it's not visual!
|
As I understand him, Lharasim is not denying that 3d images of a stage can be rendered by an audio system/component. He denies that this capacity is a virtue, that is, makes the audio system a good one. It is not a virtue, the argument goes, because the purpose of an audio system is to reproduce as close as possible live music. And live music doesn't have such spatial cues and no standard of evaluation measures live music by that (that's the point of conductor example).
So, there are two different claims: one regarding the chief aim of audio reproduction (and its attendant virtues) and the second one regarding the existence and importance of spatial information at live events. In my opinion, spatial information at live events is given primarily visually. At a live event, the sonic field is so dense that the ability to say, based on aural cues alone, that the flute is two meters left of the oboe is severely limited (at best). And it is of no importance whatsoever that we able to make those judgments--for live music. I take this to more or less uncontroversial.
Now it is undeniable that some audiophiles tend to evaluate their system's prowess in part on how well it stages, e.g. "I put in a new power cord and the stage got 10 feet wide and a mile deep--brilliant!" However, if the chief aim of audio reproduction is realism (to use a bad word) or faithfulness to live music, then it seems puzzling (or if you're Lharasim, deeply annoying and contradictory) to want and care about such things.
I'm of two minds on this. While I believe that live music is and should be the standard, I rather enjoy and sometimes even evaluate the quality of a new component by its ability to render spatial information. As I type, I'm listening to Mahler's 6th (early Bernstein) using the AT 20ss cart and it renders spatial dimensions quite well (cowbells (!) left; tympani back center; woodwinds front center; etc..--but I know full well from experience that there is no way from an audience seat that the same symphony would be rendered in that way. Perhaps there's no contradiction here, since just as with other art forms (e.g., painting) we've abandoned realism as the sole standard, we should think of audio reproduction as following a similar path. (Although I don't know of any manufacturers who would embrace 'artificial' as an apt description of their product's sound.) If there can be different basic functions, then we can have room for different audio virtues (to use an example from above: hyper detailing and the ability to distinctly hear grains of rice falling) that facilitate the performance of them. |
Dear Halcro, i had a shallow pastiche once, but i traded it for a '67 mustang and a carton of Luckys :) seriously, though that was an awesome post and well considered. i am iching to hear how mm's sound on my recently completed LCR phono stage.
mike |
Dear Nandric and friends: As I posted maybe is time to have more precise and clear audio-words related to explain quality performance on audio-items.
A common audio language is a must to have but IMHO it is a lot more easy/simple tell it that achieve it.
I think that that " new " audio glozary must include two real aspects of the whole " thing ": objectivity with a touch of subjectivity.
The " touch of subjectivity " I'm talking is not the usualy: " I like it " or " what a soundstage " and the like, what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve.
Example, Dlaloum posted: ++++ " Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music. " +++++
why those " speed/dynamics " diferences are IMHO THE MAIN DIFFERENCEs BETWEEN LIVE MUSIC AND AUDIO SYSTEM. My take here is that in live music there is nothing but the air between the music instrument sound and you: fastest than this does not exist, is from here where the full live music dynamics belongs to that straight and simple: an audio system never can not even but not be near it. You have to think all the linka that exist between the live instrument to be recorded till that sound emanate from the speakers!!!! all the speed/dynamics took by the microphone were loosed on all those audio links during the recording and playback proccess.
Dlaloum ( I love this guy. ) posted: " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect. " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system?, if you take a look to my virtual system music priorities this one is the last in importance to me.
I'm with Dlaloum about to take objectivity as main parameter to evaluate audio item performance. Not that I'm against subjectivity ( because I'm not. ) but if you think a little subjectivity depends on objectivity even if we are not measuring the right source, all what we heard/hear can be measure no doubt about.
Problem with subjectivity is that all of us are already biased to some kind of sound that we like because all what we learned ( bad and good things. ) and experienced and I have to tell: some of us and I can tell almost all are biased in a wrong way by the AHEE.
An example of this is that many people today still are in love with tubes ( please don't go inside that's is not a subject here but only an example. ) or with hoprns on speakers or LOMC cartridges or fancy cables.
How can we get or meet to a concens when we all are biased in some different ways?, to achieve that concens could be a fenomenal, titanic and almost impossible target with out a common bias on what we hear.
Years ago ( 1-2 ) in this thread I invited all of you to try again ( dertonarm posted the first official thread asking for the same and after 100 posts I was the only person that took the " bull by its horns ": no one else cares or understand the main importance of the subject in favor to understand in between all of us. ) to find out that common bias on what we heard. I explained about, even I linked my posts on that Dertonarm's thread, and the result was the same: no one cares. Everybody talks but no one really cares and do nothing about.
That's why some of you not only can't understand why I support that the FR-64/66 is the more distorted tonearm out there even some of you are in love with and like this tonearm subject there are many more.
We are in a Babel's Tower where more or less we think we understand each to other but the real subject IMHO is that is not that way: the warm term ( for example ) has several kind of meaning in each one of us, could be at random that some of us could coincide in the meaning but I can't know for shure.
An audio glossary terms IMHO means that we understand the same on one term ( tone color or dynamics or whatever. ): its meaning and that meaning how is reflected in our audio system. For achieve this we have to have a common bias on some LPs/tracks where all hear/experience almost the same. With out this common bias we can't go on.
Every one of us have their " propietary " system's proccess to make evaluations and that proccess is the one that we use every single time we are making comparisons.
I posted several times in this an other threads my proccess that always follow with the same tracks and the same protocol, I never changed and only make a change to enrich the whole proccess. That's why I'm so fast to evaluate not only an audio item but any audio system with over 90% of success, at least till now.
As you can see the task is a hard an complex one and more complex because as Lewm poste: normally " we agree to disagree ".
Anyway, sooner or latter we must do it. To live every single day in this Babel's Tower is useless and non-productiv for any one.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Lewm I enjoy reading your writing..... but obviously do not attend Live orchestral music as there is NO SAX instruments in a orchestra ...LOL if you were meaning french horns or some other brass ok then... but..
some of the more modern composers may have wrote music that included the sax saxophones but it is a more modern instrument...and not much music written IMMHO this is a jazz instrument not for orchestral IMO
Again there is NO 3d sound like audiophiles portray and I agree that there is some location of where a group or an instruments location is but nothing like how audiophiles portray like to point out pinpoint and 3d imaging its audiophile BS
Lets get back to the music people
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Dear Larry, Because I disagree with you completely on the subject of "3D". Some systems with some software sources can sometimes deliver an image that has "depth". Sometimes not. I perceive this, so you cannot legislate it out of existence by making a pronouncement. What does this mean? This means that when its happening, one can sense that the guy hitting the tympani is at the rear, the trumpets are a little more to the fore and the sax players are sitting in front of the trumpets and maybe the vocalist is standing in front of the whole entourage, for one example. Why is this so inflammatory? The fact that the conductor of the actual orchestra in real time may or may not hear it the same way is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Similarly, I doubt that any of the musicians hear it the way either I or the conductor might hear it. So what? |
There is most certainly holography-- depending on the recording, of course. This requires a system capable of revealing small variations in volume as depth cues. It's a function of superior electronics, not room variables or speaker placement. |
Dear Dgarretson: I have not that experience but normaly is hard to take out a cartridge in that condition and when goes out ( if this coukld happen. ) there is no way to mount it in an universal headshell: that cartridge was not prepared for that kind of set up/mount. In the other side always exist the posibilioty that trying to do it the cartridge could be damaged.
Now, I know that " something " is better that nothing but here differences on quality performance level are important beteen the MK2 and MK version, I mean not subtle. Of course that if you already own it you have to live with but if not then try to wait for a better carrtridge " offer ".
yes, I know too that the P100CMK4 ( stand alone version. ) is very hard to find out .
Btw, I was so stupid to let it go my MK4 version but fortunately I recove it. IMHO, any carrtridge looking for be name it the best out there must pass over the Technics P100CMK4 before can achieve that " name ". The MK4 is an extraordinary performer in its stand alone/non-integrated version.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Lewm my friend.... there is no 3d in real live music and this is not subjective!!... like I have said in my earlier posting about these issues we should be talking about how our playback systems relate to the live event and speak that way...
example.. you will never hear a conductor talk about how 3d his orchestra sounded ...conductors speak on things like timing, color, togetherness etc..again there is no holographic imaging!! I would love for all audiophile terms to go away and speak about how live music relates to our playback systems....why is that so hard?!
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Dear Raul, Perhaps I came down to hard on you, but that's because I know you can take criticism as well as deliver it. Anyway, as regards tubes vs transistors, we can agree to disagree. I surely do concede that solid state in the modern era has come a long way in a positive direction from what it was. (Note that this has happened despite the fact that the "measurements" have not changed much over the years; the old SS amplifiers that measured .000001% THD sounded like s**t. If anything, the newest SS products measure less well yet sound much better. Why? Because the typical lab measurements do not mean squadoosh when it comes to reproducing a musical wave form.)
The point is and was, the Grace Ruby cartridge (the one I own, anyway) is very musical, in the best sense of the word. It offers remarkable sound stage depth and 3-dimensionality. It separates complex musical lines very naturally. If it has any "weakness", I would only cite the extreme low bass response, which may be a little "shy" but not lacking in detail. My MM phono stage (the Silvaweld) may be partly responsible for that shyness. The Ruby is so good that I am interested to revisit my other cartridges and also the ones I have not auditioned, so as to determine whether anything else is much better. This leads me to be interested in trying some of the highest regarded of the LOMC types, some of which I already listed. |
A question about Technics EPC-100C mk2: This cartridge is photographed as fully contained inside an integral headshell. Can the cartridge be removed from the headshell and mounted to a one-piece tonearm via 1/2" holes? |
Dear Henry, You are not addresed by me, uh, as Henry but
as architect. As such you need to combine the technical
with the aesthetical. The paradigma of objective/subjective
connection. No wonder that your vocabulary for both must
or should be extensive. You need to communicate with 'both
parties' and this imply switching the vocabulary. The art(s) are not about the truth/false aim which is the quidance for the science but about the other values which we connect with arts. At school I had no choice but to read writers
which my teachers Serbo-Croatian, Russian and German PRESCRIBED. Ie my literary education determined my literature, so to speak. But, for example, the art of painting was not teached and I was not interested in this art 'on my own'. However I live in a country with great painting tradition 'filled' with ditto museums or galleries which are visited by kids from 6 years old,etc.
The problem seems to be this. Those who admire whatever art see this as something positive but also want to make of this something objective even with 'truth pretentions'. At this point they come in conflict with the 'real objectivist'. I already had such a conflict but I hope that David will somehow menage to avoid them. But this is of course his own choice.
Regards, |
It appears, using the Stereophile's Audio Glossary (thank you Ecir38), and David's definitions, that Lew's usage of the word musical was correct in his discription of what his friend heard. |
LOL - Plus ca change ....
I have to say that I am guilty to subscribing to the school of thought that states that if the measurement does not properly relate to the empirical experience, then you are not measuring the right thing.
The field of psycho acoustics is still one where new research is being done, and understanding is limited.
Given that our measured / quantitative knowledge of hearing is incomplete (at best)... it is difficult to attempt to take our subjective and variable language and try to find some universal measuring sticks with which to gauge our vague language so we can all know what we are talking about.
After all isn't that exactly what international standards are all about - an agreed way of defining a metre or a gram.
The subjectivist side of this debate puts forward that there can be no measuring stick for beauty. (although modelling agency requirements for their staff appear to imply otherwise)
My response to this is that the beauty is in the artform we are endeavouring to reproduce.... it is in the performance that was recorded, and NOT in the reproduction of that recording.
If a bad (ugly) recording is reproduced such that the end result in your listening room is in fact beautiful - an Alchemical transformation - then you have created something new.
(All such Alchemists should be burned at the spindle on a fire of overheated thermionics)
But I am repeating much of what is in the Stereophile article linked above....
I am no auronihilist... but the Stereophile glossary is usefull!
bye for now
David |
Dear Halcro: That Jico SAS for the P77 could be something that you need to try and decide about. Is there a lot of difference with the original P77's stylus?, well I have to wait because again my system goes down but what my brief listening gives me was a welcomed add option to the Garrot/A&R 77.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
David,
I applaud your contribution to the task of attempting a definition (or glossary) of audio terms via some technical specifications.
This seems to go some way to helping Nikola in his quest?
What is evident however......is that your glossary appears to be related to 'measurement'?
Now we all know that one amplifier.......let's say......can measure identically to another in terms of 'frequency response'.......yet the two can sound quite differently?
The perennial problem we have had in audio.......which has not changed perceptively in 100 years.......is that basically what we can measure, does not often correlate to what we hear or how, what we hear, affects our emotions?
This has bred the validation of a 'subjective' audio press initiated by the first Stereophile and The Absolute Sound 'underground' magazines.
How do you imagine that status quo to have changed?
Cheers
Henry |
Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/
I'm a simple man and had no problem with how Lews friend used the term musical. One can conclude that he liked what he was hearing. It was not so much directed toward the F9 but probably from the combo with the idler magic.
Everyone has a differant opinion of what they like and dislike so take most descriptions with a grain of salt. One can tell the users preference by what components they use in their system. We have been around long enough to fiqure that much out as Raul has stated numerous times.
One term that is "unheard" of in the above glossary.
http://www.badrecordcovers.com/?p=216 |
Dear David, I am sorry to have overlooked you but it looks
as if you can read my mind. I have no idea about the 'necessary notions' but the way you composed your list of terms is what I had in mind with my proposal. Lucky
me you give the exampel or the 'pattern' so I am not anymore in the (nasty) position to explain what I 'really meant'.
Regards, |
|
Hi all, I think that the most disputes about words are contra productive because nobody will give up 'his own'. On the other side we need some 'common vocabulary' because
we are a typical community with the same (queer) hobby. Each discipline has its own terminology such that participant from different countries are able to understand
statements containing those terms or notions. They give the
context and/or 'orientation' regarding the question 'what
are we talking about'. The terms used have or should have
both: the meaning and the reference. The reference is what
we are supposed to hear : the music. A very complex and
tricky external physical occurance. As is the case with all
kinds of learning we learn from others, usualy the teachers. The reachest vocabulary I have seen in this thread is from Henry then Lew then Raul. Lew is also a musician so he must be familiar with the terminology used by the musicians. I don't believe that all of us want to enter musical academy but some notions from this discipline look
to me to be necessary. Ie we will need some consensus about ,say, a minimal number of terms (words,notions) in order to have a 'common language' because this seems to be
the necessary condition to understand each other. However
this is not about 'the' English language and ditto dictionary for obvious reasons: musical terminology is already 'universal'.
My proposal is that Henry, Lew and Raul think about and, if they believe that this make sense, try to describe the terms which they think are necessary for the purpose.Ie for what we think that we are talking about. Raul is already behaving as a theacher so Henry and Lew will need to consider the proposition.
Regards, |
Neutrality - ability to reproduce the frequency spectrum correctly (ie: flat frequency response - one problem with magnetic systems is that the frequency response varies according to level... as the signal itself acts as a biasing current into the coils of the cartridge)
Colouration - anomalies in the frequency response - usually peaks or troughs limited to a narrow range of frequencies are identifiable as a colouration - a smooth rise or fall isn't usually interpreted as colouration, more likely to be described as warm/cool, perhaps bright or smooth...
Transparency - this one is much harder to quantify - usually it is about the ability to discern the details... the micro rather than the macro of the recording, without those details necessarily becoming prominent (ie: not a colouration as above...)
I think it may be closely related to speed/nimbleness/effective tip mass...
Some people focus on the soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect... if you have more detail exposed clearly, you imaging improves...
Fluidity / Coherence..... IMO these are time or phase related.
In a live acoustic performance, the sounds are in a clear and precise time based synchronicity....
I am not just talking about the rhythm of the music - which is the performance per se... but the many harmonics flooding the room from the different surfaces of the musical instrument - these are directly related to the musicians actions on the instrument - related in time based terms.
As has been discovered with digital jitter, time based errors that are extremely minute, can have a distincat and audible impact on the end result...
This is where the best cartridges are separated from the rest....
Anything that involves a resonance, will also involve 1) A colouration (peak/drop) 2) A phase shift / Timing errors
Also the base LCR circuit created by the cartridge also has phase implications - much more so for high inductance MM's than for very low inductance MC's.
To make things more difficult for the average listener, all these timing related issues are complete obfuscated by the plethora of speakers out there that do not reproduce 20-20k in proper phase coherency. (if the speaker is messing with the timing already, how can you possibly tell whether the cartridge is doing a good or bad job..... rhetorical)
Finally there is Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music.
Repeating myself a bit here - but effective tip mass is the absolute most important thing. (for the same reason that electrostatic speakers are so dynamic and transparent) - this is also the key to micro detail...
So we get to "Musicality"....
To me this is a value judgement of the sum of the above categories, where someone is basically approving of the chosen blend of compromises made in the design.
It is usually accepting of flaws, as part of the judgement made is that the flaws are of lesser importance than the strengths. It has been weighed on the scales of audiophilia and found to be "Musical".
Basically all you can say when someone calls a component musical is that they liked it regardless of and perhaps in spite of, its flaws.
Is it euphonic - no way of knowing, is it coloured - ditto... it says NOTHING about the particulars and everything about the listeners ultimate reaction to it.
The very definition of a subjective term!
bye for now
David |
Dear Professor,
Peter Ledermann is the 'exception' I mentioned in current cartridge designers and from all reports from my trusted sources......the cartridges he produces (including the Strain Gauge) are not to be sneezed at?
With the bamboo cantilever.......he gives a lifetime stylus replacement.
Has he got it in for Axel???
Regards
Henry |
|
Regards, Griffthds: I tried my best, but ON NO!, you had to ask. An example of don't ask, you may not like the answer, for sure.
Rather than musical or analytical, it may be helpful to think in terms of speed or fluidity. These terms do avoid the typical negative connotations. Favored carts offer a fundamental connection with the music; a realistic tonality, dynamic, appropriate transient behavior, a robust solidity and satisfying uncongested flow.
If the choice MUST be between neutrality and transparency or fluidity and coherence, we're in trouble. Consideration is given to the design of a transducer for the desired effect. Arguing this is not so would be unrealistic and fortunately there are numerous carts to choose from. Although differences can be subtle, each is invested with it's special character and appeal. One perhaps suited for the purist who listens analytically, or another capable of meeting the expectations of the enthusiast who is appreciative of the involvement of a less structured live performance. Although analog is a mature medium it's unfortunate that the perfectionist must be forever frustrated in that the faultless system has not yet been developed. Consequently the subjective element arises, an element that can't be dismissed.
Anyone want to go on record as preferring a cart that isn't musical?
Peace, |
It's interesting that Lew brings up the subject of 'valves' and 'transistors' in this discussion on MM and MC cartridges?
I have heard a lot of the best SS amplification (both preamps and power amps) including Gryphon, MBL, Soulution, Plinius, Mark Levinson, Boulder and of course Halcro......and none of them IMHO.... has ever approached the transparency and three-dimensional believability of the best 'tubes'.
Despite the higher distortions inherent in a 'tube' circuitry.......there is a 'magic' there, which no amount of denial from Raul can dissolve?
The two regrets in my audio life is that I cannot find a valve power amp to drive my speakers satisfactorily......and that I no longer have a valve preamp in my system!
What I hear between the presentation of LOMCs and MMs is very similar to what I hear between SS and Valves.
MMs provide a 'magic' naturalness which so far......seems to elude MCs? |
OK. The term "musical" to describe an audio component has indeed become controversial in some circles. Those who, like Raul, are on a quest to eliminate all distortions might take it to mean that the component adds a pleasant coloration. "Euphonic" is another term for the same thing. Of course, this is not at all what I meant to say about the Grace Ruby. I took umbrage in fact at Raul's implying that if I heard the Grace as musical, in this narrow sense of the word, then it must mean that I am not after the real truth in sound reproduction, for which he professes to be in a lonely search, like Don Quixote. Because we all know that live music does not always sound "beautiful". I know this too; that's why I was remonstrating with Raul. To me the term "musical" means that the component CAN reproduce not only the beauty but also the stridency and the cacophony of a live performance. Not to say anything is perfect in that regard. Also, this goes back to the fact that Raul has sworn off all tube electronics because of "distortions"; that's a bone of major contention between him and me. I gave up discussing the relative merits of tubes vs transistors with Raul, because he will fall back on his standard argument that I have not trained myself as a careful listener who can detect distortions, nor have any of you. |
Hi Danny,
First time that I have ever heard someone refer to a Grace Ruby as being fat, slow and syrupy! I quess what it realy is, is a very unmusical cartridge. I seem to have alot of unmusical cartridges. I use them in my unmusical system. Sounds rather unrealistic to me! |
Hello Raul, I seem to have misread your statement, so no reply is necessary.
I shouldn't have taken the Evelyn Woodhead sped reding course with Ed Murphy. |
I have to agree with Don on what the term " Musical" should mean but somewhere along the way the term was hijacked by people who didn't want to have to say , I like my music "Fat,slow and syrupy" (not that there's anything wrong with that ;). Musical just sounds a little better in that context.
I set up my Technics U205cMK3 with the Jico sas stylus for that cartridge and it is very unmusical. In fact it's annoying and will be sold soon. As Henry said life is to short. I then was able to get the original Mk 3 stylus to play most of a Schumann Piano quartet before starting to bottom out and had the first emotional connection to music in 2 days.
It is also possible I have a poor sample, so if anyone else has a different experience please let me know. I do like the Technics 205 and would probably try another replacement if someone could recommend one.
Raul, I guess I will have to get the Jico for the P77 since most have said it is an improvement on the original. Do you think that the standard P77 sounds better with the Jico stylus because it was not tweaked by Garrott for the Garrott stylus?
Danny |
|
Dear Lewm: Good that you know everything but I'm not making a critic about you but what your friend said that's acomumn audiophile vocabolary for say: " I like it " more that's " right ".
Anyways, I don't need to been at your place to know what you are talking about ( almost. ): I know that you use modified tube electronics, I know your analog rig and more or less your ES speakers so I don't have the necesity to figure nothing.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nandric,
I'm onto your Balkin ways! While I'm watching my back for Boris, who will be watching my front! You Balkin's are slippery! |
Dear Griffthds, I hope you have no intention to involve me
in 'definitions' of English words? For your 'negative' insinuation about 'this Balkin humor' I will complain by my uncle Boris. So watch your back. |
Dictionary definition of Musical:
"Musical adj. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music: a musical instrument. Characteristic of or resembling music; melodious:"
I for one do not see anything in this defination that even comes close to " un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion..."
Lewm's friend felt that the MM cartridge was capable of producing music better that the MC. Made perfect sense to me!
Where in the hell are you people finding these negitive definations of these very common words or is this Balkin humor and I missed the joke? |
Raul, "IMHO", I know what these terms mean and what they do not mean. I know what spurious "colorations" are and are not. I should have known better than to use the term "musical" on this thread. Some audio bits help convey the sensation that one is at a live performance, and some get in the way of it, mostly by a sin of omission. What my friend meant and what I mean when I say the Grace Ruby is more musical than the Ortofon MC7500 should be obvious. Please give me some credit, or come and listen for yourself. I can only agree on one thing: the word "musical" probably should be thrown out of our lexicon, because it does have an ambiguous meaning for an experienced audiophile. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "It's more musical" " +++++
like " smooth " " musical " IMHO almost always is a sinonymus of un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion...
Live music is accurate and has natural tone color, it is smooth but at the same time with natural agressiveness.
Musical, smooth, warmer, analityc, lean and the like are audiophile terms that means that kind of performance is not accurate but colored and/distorted.
There are no audio systems that be perfect so those colorations are " normal " and the differences in between for quality performance level resides in those " colorations/distorions " level differences.
So it is normal for many people speak with those " normal " terms. Maybe we need a different set of audiophile words or change its today meaning.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Henry, I assume that you can 'digest' my philosophical
post only because you like the Balkan humor?
My quote of Davidson : 'all events are physical but not all
are (also) mental' looks like a riddle. I forget to add
this , I hope, 'enlightening' example invented by Russel.
I forget the context or what he wantend to point out but
here it is:
'this stone is thinking of Vienna.'
Regards, |
Dear Lew, Having a very wealthy friend is, alas, not the same as being rich yourself. So I understand the tension between your longing for a top MC cart and the 'willingness' to pay their price. But I noticed the following. The Ortofon A90 of which 'only' limited numbers are produced is offered for $2400 on ebay (new in the box).
Looking at those expensive Van den Huls on ebay one is inclined
to think:'there must be something wrong with this one considering the price'. And so further. No idea if the producers are killing each other but I am sure that they
all are 'fishing' in the same water. I also know that patience is not your best 'quality' but the mentioned 'shift' is very promissing for those who also
think by carts above 4K 'not me brother'.
Regards, |
Don, Thanks for your thoughts. It is very easy to change stylus on the Empire so I may try that.
Sean |
Sean,
There is no easy way to describe the sonic differences!
I do not hear any difference in between the DIII's. Astatic or Empire. The Astatic DII and the Empire DI sound very similar except with slightly decreasing bass weight in their presentations. Slightly is the key word here. I can roll tubes and receive greater sonic differences that rolling any of the above mentioned cartridges. Perhaps when used in CD4 channel retrieval, there would be more of a difference, but in 2 channel, to close to call. The lpgear is the one that had puzzled me. They call it a Empire 4000DIII replacement but I have reciently discovered it is a eliptical profile albeit a very good one. It never did sound anything like the others even though it looked (tapered tube, etc.), just like them. Don't miss understand me. It still is a very clean sounding stylus. It just doesn't have the Empire smooth or "relaxed" sound to quote Timeltel. I actually prefer the lpgear version when I'm listening to live recordings of Blues, Rock, etc. More of a in your face, you are there kind of sonic soundscape! If you are concidering something other than your Astatic DII, I would get the lpgear DIII. It's only $40 and would give you something that was not only good, but alittle different sonic wise. Everything else would only be fine tuning what you aready have!
Regards,
Don |
|
Don, Since you have both the original and aftermarket stylus as well as all three kinds-DI,DII,DIII can you describe the sonic differences? I have not heard any but my Astatic 4000DII.
Regards,
Sean |
Lewm,
My 1st ever Empire 4000DIII was bought from Pacific Stereo in San Diego during the Quad era back in the mid 70's Several years later, this same company (Pacific Stereo), had a close out sale on all of the Empire stock. They were severing ties with Empire due to poor customer relation problems. At that time they were owned by TAE, a stylus replacement manufacturer who had also bought Walco who was a stylus replacement manufacturer. . They kept the name Empire, used their stylus inventory, which was Empire, or Walco, or TAE to fill the original Empire stylus cartridge line.
The original Empire 4000D stylus's are a long tapered cantiliver. The clearance sale Empire stylus was a short fat tube cantilver. I contacted TAE/Empire thinking I had a fake and was informed that they had "upgraded the cantiliver design" and that the straight fat tube was the latested design.
Therefore, an "original" Empire stylus could be an original Empire stylus. Or it could be a good Walco imitation. It could be a mediocre Walco imitation. Or a mediocre TAE imitation. They own the Empire name and could put any cantiliver on any Empire cartridge they choose to.
BTW. That short fat tube type Empire 4000DIII is one of the worse tracking cartridges that I have ever owned. I have read on this and other forums of members who do not like the 4000D's. I've wondered if what they had was not a original Empire, but a TAE Empire.
I still have one of those stylus's so if you would like to have me sent you a picture of it, sent me a email address. It will make you laugh if you have a original tapered 4000D to compare it to!
Regards,
Don |
No question about it, and this is the very first thing I noted about the very first MM I auditioned after joining this thread, the MM/MI alternative does piano better and more realistically than MC, plain and simple. There may be individual exceptions to that rule, but I have yet to hear it. I hear live jazz piano 2 to 4 times a month, when I go to my jazz vocal workshop. I also played piano as a kid and up until recently owned a Bechstein. "Nobody does it better" than a good MM. Why? The MM gets the harmonic envelope of a real piano as well as the decay of a piano note, better.
Another incident that was telling to me: Recently I had a very wealthy friend visiting for an audition of my system. He lives in France, where he owns a Verdier table, a Schroeder tonearm, and a very expensive MC cartridge. He also owns an Audio Note Kegon amplifier driving a fancy horn array (can't recall the brand or model). We were comparing the Ortofon MC7500 in a Reed tonearm on my Technics Mk3 vs the Grace Ruby on a Dynavector DV505/Lenco. Although the Technics is a superior table in most ways, it took him about 15 minutes, during which time he remarked frequently about ways in which he preferred my system to his, to decide that he preferred the Grace vs the Ortofon. "It's more musical", he said. I agree. |
Thanks Lew.
I also am wondering about Raul’s evasiveness in revealing his two ‘choice’ LOMC cartridges?
Furthering your thoughts on trying the ZYX UNIverse LOMC cartridge………I have had three of them and for at least the last 5 or 6 years……it has been my ‘reference’ cartridge and easily the best LOMC that I have heard. It is also quite arm tolerant, sounding well in arms as diverse as the Hadcock GH 228, Continuum Copperhead, Graham Phantom II, DaVinci 12” Grandezza, Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s.
The Fidelity Research FR-7f I recently acquired……comes the closest to it of all the LOMCs I have heard in my system (although the Lyra Olympos I’ve heard in other systems may indeed equal or exceed it in some ‘emotional’ aspects?).
As good as the UNIverse is though……….it still suffers IMO, in comparison to the best MM cartridges in the important areas of ‘realism’ which I mentioned in my previous post.
Raul,
Your references to colourations/distortions leads back to the quote at the beginning of my previous post….and the position of subjective vs objective which is close to the heart of our Balkan friend Nandric?
Once I had arrived at my ‘discovery’ of the Moving Coil puzzle……..it was as if an enormous weight had lifted from my shoulders?
No longer was I puzzled by my preferences…..nor was I ‘constrained’ by the accepted correct ‘sound’ of cartridges in general.
There are some MM cartridges which can sound tonally….close to LOMCs. Because of the prevalence and acceptance of the MC ‘sound’…….I feel that without consciously knowing it….we tend to favour those MMs (which approach the MC sound) as being ‘neutral’ or ‘uncoloured’?
But if I conclude that Moving Coils do not, to me, sound like the ‘real’ thing……why should I accept that Moving Magnets should sound close to Moving Coils?
Liberated as I now felt……..I listened to one of my favourite MM cartridges…..the Empire 4000D/III Gold mounted in the Copperhead tonearm on the Raven AC-2 turntable.
A liquid performance of emotional integrity enveloped my entire listening room.
Here was the ‘reality’!
No mamby pamby pussyfooted politically correct vapid ‘interpretation’ here!!?
Air…transparency…gut-wrenching bass…..three-dimensional imaging and…..the clincher……’believability’!!
I immediately reached for my other MM cartridges which were previously thought to be ‘coloured’ but shared the Empire’s DNA.
The Fidelity Research FR-5E and FR-6SE as well as the Empire 1000ZE/X and the Garrott P77.
Each one brought the emotional impact and ‘truthfulness’ that I’ve never experienced with say……digital?
The concert grand piano is arguably the hardest instrument to record and reproduce convincingly?
It has the widest dynamic range of any instrument….and it can actually be played in a home so that the reproduction of it on our systems……can be truthfully compared.
The same can be said about violins, flutes, clarinets etc……but they are relatively ‘easy’ instruments to actually reproduce?
The piano is a percussion instrument….but it is also a ‘stringed’ instrument.
On the real thing, one can hear the ‘striking’ of the hammer felt and the vibration/reverberation of the strings.
Very few recordings exist which accurately capture these effects.
Two that do it the best IMO….are the 1981 recording of Daniel Barenboim playing the Liszt Sonate in B Minor on Deutche Grammophon and the Keith Jarrett Koln Concert on ECM.
When played with the MMs I have now elevated to ‘Golden’ status…..the reality of a concert grand in my living room is achieved.
Can I really ask for more? |
Hi Sarcher30,
I think I own more cartridges/stylus's than I own socks! This is my Empire collection.
I have 2 original Empire 4000DI's, 2 orginal Empire 4000DIII's, 1 Astatic 4000DII stylus, 2 Astatic 4000DIII stylus's, and 1 lpgear 4000DIII stylus. I run the non original Empire stylus's on my Empire 2000E bodies to great effect BTW.
Regards,
Don |
Lewm, My Astatic 4000dii is an aftermarket replacement stylus for an Empire cartridge. I assume Don's DIII is also.
If I had to guess which MC cart Raul is not naming it would be the Ortofon Anna. I'm not sure why Raul is teasing us:). I recently heard it at Mike Lavignes place and it sounded great.
|
Don, My post on the possible identity between the two 4000DIIIs was a question, not an assertion. Hence the question mark. Does seem beyond the range of chance that the two companies could have arrived at identical names for their styli. Not important either way, however. Does this make Empire sinister, in your opinion. Like the Evil Empire or Empire Strikes Back? (Lame attempt at humor.)
Henry, That was a great post on the feelings that accompany switching back and forth between MM and MC. The two MCs that I have been using for the past few years are the Koetsu Urushi and the Ortofon MC7500. Right now, I am about to switch from the Ortofon back to the Urushi so as to compare it to my current favorite MMs. What I find is that I "love the one I'm with", for a while and then want to go back to the other technology for a while too. But I tend to find good qualities in both types. I am wanting lately to try a really top end MC, to get another angle on this subject. Based on nothing but internet scuttlebutt, I am interested in ZYX UNIverse (in this case, I heard it locally and really liked it), Miyajima Kansai, Transfiguration Orpheus or Temper, Blue Angel Mantis, and a few others. Ortofon MCA90 and Dynavector DV1t or s do not really tempt me; nor does anything costing more than $5K (generally available used for $2K to $3K).
I am trying to figure out why Raul cannot say which are his current MCs, since he has admitted above that he is in a mood to prefer them vs MM/MI. What would be lost by spilling the beans on this not so dark secret? |
Dear Dgarretson, Nobody can do without some 'mental map' or
'intellectual frame of orientation'. The 'dichotomy' you
refered to is constructed from the 'opposite terms' or conceptions probable because this is the easy way to learn 'the map'. Ie the 'conceptual map'.
Now : 'interpretation is the revange ...etc,.
We use the expression 'revange' as reason to explain some
peculiar kind of action. Revenge imply a relation between at least two persons. Say John beat up Paul because Paul seduced his wife.
Or: Pogorelic interpretation of Beethoven Sonata nr.32 was such that listeners got mad and wanted to beat him up as revenge for the lost time and money.
I turned your quote the other way round and this make more
sense than your quote. In your quote 'interpretation' is
constructed as a person with angry intentions. Is this
interpretation of some universal kind or are there different kinds of interpretations? Say of Kant, Hegel, Beethoven and Mozart. We have read about Richters interpretation of Beethoven, Gilels kind, etc., but there is no way to ask Beethoven which of them is the right one.
So what kind of interpretation are you or your artist against? It is called 'against interpretation' but we have no clue about which one or which kind, etc.
Then 'looking as the method to get clear notions'.
I know 4 blind persons of which two got academic degree.
All 4 can look as long as they can or like to whatever object, the moon included,but we know that they can't see. How deed they learned the 'notions' needed to pass exam?
On the other side we can observe animals looking very
careful to the other kinds , those who want to eat them and
those who they like to eat. What kind of 'notions' do they get by looking?
Henry started his 'Copernican revolution' in order to make some point. Now deed people before Copernicus see the same moon as the people after Copernican revolution?
Well Copernican revolution give us some other 'frame work' to understand our universe. I don't believe that he improved our visual capabilities.
Ergo the methaforical use of language by your artist is alas not explaining anything . The division of labour is that the artist should care about beauty , esthetics or whatever but we expect from science to explain what is true and what is false. I have spend much time with the literature so I am aware of the writers pretentions to
explain to us , the readers, how the world works. However
I learned from Frege more then all writers together.
Regards,
|
Dear Nandric, I scratch my head in doubt that the arts(musical or otherwise, together with the educated critical faculties necessary to assay the arts) will be understood or appreciated by a viewpoint so strictly based on scientific rationalism and technical linguistic analysis. What rationalist construction do you apply to Buber's I and Thou? I believe that you earlier alluded to a generation of russian philo-scientific materialistic youth yearning to become Dostoyevski? In my reading, this dilettante mind-set is precisely what Dostoyevsky the artist was rebelling against in intellectuals of his day. Perhaps this is why you found madness in the underground man and perhaps the author. Anyway, you seem to accord with Plato in his suspicion of the arts and little can be said or done to change that. |
Dear Halcro: I almost agree with you, as a fact your experiences are what through this thread other members reported including me.
Now, " working " again with LOMC cartridges in the last 1.5 year I found out at least two LOMC cartridges that did not conforms exactly as what you stated but that in some ways gives what we like for the top MM/MI and do it more accurate with lower coloration than in the MM/MI cartridges.
In a home audio system IMHO the frequency extremes are the ones that " tame " the midrange, as better the frequency extremes as better the midrange we have to recall that music is conformed by harmonics.
IMHO a " weak " link ( if we can name it that way. ) in the MM/MI cartridges against my prefered LOMC ones is at frequency extremes where one-two maybe 3-4 LOMC cartridges performs ( as I said ) with not only best applomb but with accuracy that the MM/MI even that are near it can't even.
I'm talking here of small/tiny " colorations/distortions " but not because are tiny are not there. System resolution and system accuracy IMHO is the name to evaluate that subject.
I'm waiting to receive all my MM/MI and LOMC " up graded " by Axel to make a re-evaluation on the whole subject looking for what I was missing before the up grade or lossing after it.
Something very clear to me is that the MM/MI performance quality level is almost always very high against LOMC where there are several cartridges that are terrible. The MM/MI alternative is more " even " on that subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
