View Full Version : Recordings vs. Equipment
Ted Bell
05-04-2002, 04:29 AM
Here's something I've been thinking about for a while and would appreciate the group's opinions:
A couple of years ago, we moved into a new house and I set up kind of a dedicated listening room in the loft. I've been upgrading my equipment to the point that I now have a moderately high end system. Discovering this forum has also made me hip to the DCC and better mastered recordings. My last upgrade was a nice turntable and cartridge (I had put my old Thorens into storage thinking LPs were dead) and I find myself now listening mostly to vinyl upstairs. Anyway, I've been bringing my DCC CDs to work where I have a modest stereo poorly set up (speakers in bookshelves on different walls) in my small 10X10 L shaped private office. Anyway, the recordings sound GREAT!
So where do you think $$ are better spent? Equipment to eliminate grain or get that last bit of bass or treble extension or better mastered recordings?
Jay N.
Vinyl in a loft in Florida? Don't you think that's a bad combination? ;)
For me, it's a case of where I simply can't pass up software as some DCC, MFSL, MCA etc. items are harder and harder to come by. If you found a HWY 61 in a store, how can you pass it up? So it's save up for the expensive hardware items, all the while testing and listening and reading reviews until you know what you want and then spring for it!
That's the way I see it! :)
Jay,
I'm sort of with Gary on this one. Grab the soft ware as it goes oop very quickly and goes up in value at a huge rate. The hardware can be gotten at anytime, unless of course it's a really good deal.;)
Another thought along those lines...
The software goes oop rather quickly....forever.
The hardware is not only "always around" it becomes obsolete and superceded just as quickly by something "better."
Yeah, right. Let me think on that one for awhile....
BTW - Dave, what's your opinion on equalizers for home stereo use?
Good weekend,
Ben
Humorem
05-04-2002, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Ted Bell
So where do you think $$ are better spent? Equipment to eliminate grain or get that last bit of bass or treble extension or better mastered recordings?
Jay N.
Jay, there is only one answer to this question: you have to do both!
Improving the stereo makes every recording you own sound better, so it must be pursued with vigor.
And, at the same time, you should budget a goodly sized chunk for those recordings that appeal to you, because you need new recordings to play on your better stereo.
How could any other approach make sense?
TP
Originally posted by Ben
BTW - Dave, what's your opinion on equalizers for home stereo use?
Ben, I don't really have any opinion because I've never heard one through my system yet. Maybe one day. :D
Do you mind if I jump in here with my opinion about equalizers?
Sucks.
Let me explain that, OK? MY equalizer sucked. It worked well, boosted bass, reduced trebble, whatever, sound shaped everything to my "liking". So it did that well. But after I bought a DCC (and MFSL, actually!) it was a useless item for me. Had it between the preamp and amp and it degraded the quality of the music something fierce. The best thing that I did was to get rid of it.
Steve commented once that audiophiles and junior audiophiles would never consider using an equalizer between preamp and amp.
BTW the worse place for an equalizer IS between the pre and amp. If you have one, run it through a tape loop so you can hear the "pure" sound of the music and flip the switch for an EQ'd sound.
Once one seriously upgrades one's stereo, the sound degrading qualities of an EQ becomes more apparent.
Just my opinion.
G
Of course there are equalizers that are VERY high end which I have never owned. But still having one between the preamp and amp is a no-no in my opinion.
Gary,
GASP!! Out of the mouth of the man who stood in my living room and tried to persuade me to try a Carver hologram eq/pre-amp with my Classe' system! I'm just stunned!
Especially after I had said that I didn't want to colour the neutral sound of my system and had heard that it added noise to the line. (Geeze I wish I had an emoticon for stunned, perhaps a jaw dropping to the ground):D
Ted Bell
05-05-2002, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Humorem
Jay, there is only one answer to this question: you have to do both!
Improving the stereo makes every recording you own sound better, so it must be pursued with vigor.
And, at the same time, you should budget a goodly sized chunk for those recordings that appeal to you, because you need new recordings to play on your better stereo.
How could any other approach make sense?
TP
Tom,
While I have had that experience of going back and hearing my recordings anew with a component upgrade, it seems to me that diminishing returns set in faster with equipment than recordings. Unfortunately, I've caught the bug so now I must do both.
Jay
Originally posted by Dave
Gary,
GASP!! Out of the mouth of the man who stood in my living room and tried to persuade me to try a Carver hologram eq/pre-amp with my Classe' system! I'm just stunned!
Especially after I had said that I didn't want to colour the neutral sound of my system and had heard that it added noise to the line. (Geeze I wish I had an emoticon for stunned, perhaps a jaw dropping to the ground):D
Actually it was a Carver Hologram, all by itself!
There are Carver preamps, receivers and who knows what else with Holograms in them! I am not impressed with the Carver C5 preamp that I have as the HK 825 preamp beats it easily. As I mentioned before, the HK825 held up suprisingly well against my McIntosh MX110 preamp. But, of course, you can't beat that McIntosh tube sound!
As for the Carver Hologram, when I find - and can afford - some more decent interconects I'll run it through the tape loop on the MX110. I'll let you know of my findings, if you want!
What interconnects, you ask? Remember the 99.9% pure silver (positive) and copper (negative) that we auditioned? They are now beefed up (doubled) and are more impressive. I've got a custom order of 3X "strength" on the way. We'll see what that sounds like. .... can't wait! Yummmm! :D
Originally posted by Gary
Remember the 99.9% pure silver (positive) and copper (negative) that we auditioned? They are now beefed up (doubled) and are more impressive.
Sure do Gary. You mean they finally found some bottom end! Cool:cool: , bring em' with ya when you come over in the Fall.;) I'm glad that you apparently got somewhere with those, but you know me... I gotta hear it for myself (he says confidently to himself, knowing nothing so far has even come close to his Kimbers.;) )
No problem-o, Dave!
I had an extra bass problem with a prototype when the copper was waaay to thick and the bass way waaay too much. Don't forget that I am having these customized for my stereo, too. This is fun!
Anyway it'll be interesting to hear them on YOUR stereo! :)
Looking foreward to it!;)
Humorem
05-05-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Ted Bell
Tom,
While I have had that experience of going back and hearing my recordings anew with a component upgrade, it seems to me that diminishing returns set in faster with equipment than recordings.
Jay
Jay,
I couldn't disagree more. On a subjective basis I would say the improvement in the quality of reproduction is similiar to that of computers: twice as good every 18 months. (This mostly applies to vinyl as there is only so much you can do with CD, but even there the gains have been remarkable.) Now that's subjective, of course. Battery power alone is about a doubling of sound quality, IMO, and that requires no replacement of your current equipment.
My friend Kim agrees. He can't believe what's on his records now that he has a new Triplanar. According to him it's night and day. Diminishing returns? Accelerating returns I say!
One interconnect, if it's the right one, can make everything sound so much better it's astonishing. Finding that right one is the hard part; it can and usually does take years, and it changes every time you change equipment, which for me is quite common. I've probably gone through 40 pairs of different designs in the last five years. They can make more of a difference than a new preamp or amp hands down. So it's worth doing, for me anyway.
TP
On a subjective basis I would say the improvement in the quality of reproduction is similiar to that of computers: twice as good every 18 months.
My new computer is a lot more powerful that my old one, but it didn’t cost much more. Computers seem to be getting better and cheaper at the same time. Hi end audio may be getting better but it’s also getting more expensive.
Yea, Tom is right (no suprise there! :) ).
After my component upgrade, I switched my copper monster cable with cheap "van den hul" cables. Wow, what an improvement!
Now the bug has bitten me.... :(
Scott Wheeler
05-05-2002, 05:44 PM
Every computer upgrade I have ever made left my computer just as crappy as it was before. I hate computers. I swear every geeky programmer fills the extra RAM, hard drive, and increased speed with more complex, useless and likely to conflict with something else crap in the program upgrades.I think they do it as revenge for the fact that they can't get any. It's an endless spiral down to the depths of cyberhell.
On the other hand great records are timeless. Equipment upgrades in your stereo often actually make for better performance. Without my stereo to take away my stress I'd shoot the computer and spend the night in jail.
So my advise. Spend as much as you can afford on the equipment. Borrow money for the records and leave the crappy computer (they all suck) the way it is.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.