bracurrie

Yeah. Reality bites. As long as I cannot understand it, it can't be true.[]

Yeah. Reality bites. As long as I cannot understand it, it can't be true.[]

No doubt about the microphone placement, but also the mixing and mastering can have an impact. I can't remember who but someone suggested a classical recording which I was unable to find that used a three mike arrangement where the soundstage and image of the orchestra was unusually good. I have lept my speakers in the corners for now, and the only real problem is that same one I have if I sit in the first few rows at the symphony. The sound stage appears much wider than if I am near the back of the room, given a good room that is. I am trying to secure either a La Scalla or a Belle to give the center channel thing another go. Even considering putting the same tweeter horn on top to match the two corner speakers. Also thought of going with K402s to see if the imaging and soundstage improves throughout the room. Thanks for the comments.

If there is a spinning hard disk, you could cause problems with it. Just went through that with one. Had to have the platters removed and installed into a new drive to recover family heirloom photos.

I found a pretty good demo for that program on YT. That is a pretty cool program. Are you setting up a recording studio? This isn't a cheap plugin... No I am not setting up a recording studio. My son creates electronic music and uses plug ins with Ableton Live and so I learned about this tech. Expensive yes but less than a DBX hardware expander and with so much more flexibility. The money I have saved not being suckered into the typical "audiophile" gear gives me the budget to go for this. I already saw the video, but it covers a lot of ground I will not be using. I was hoping some would have some experience with settings and why they used them so I could have a base to build on. Thanks

I have an evaluation of fabfilter's Pro-G plugin. http://www.fabfilter.com/help/pro-g/ It's cabable of so much more than what I want it to do and because of that I am having trouble climbing the curve on just how to use it for simple expansion. I know I have heard several members have and use expansion. Please share settings that you use and if anyone has any advice at all I would appreciate the pointers. I am ignoring Expert mode and I get the Threshold and Ratio settings. I believe the range limits the upper end of expansion. Beyond that I am learning. Thanks.

To quote a famous Arkansas politician who recently when under pressure to explain her actions exclaimed "What difference does it make?" I propose a forum where knowledge on who is and who isn't taking advantage of what state of the art tech offers to create recordings both digital and analog that are worthy of the "Klipsch Dynamic" badge of honor. What a great way for Klipsch to further their brand. Who knows how many uninformed may inquire, learn and then appreciate what increased dynamics mean. All the while recognizing that Klipsch is the speaker company that takes quality seriously enough. The more number 5s we have the better.Unfortunatly as we all know the vast majority of the public doesn't understand this issue and most treat music as a background element that benefits from "squashon"(my proposed new term for dynamic compression applied to a music recording). The producers should be interested to serve the market for higher dynamic recordings. This audience is more price elastic so there are more profits here. Amy, if you are reading this please pass it along to the powers at corporate. There is an opening here to set Klipsch apart in the market. Now a thread tie in: Most if not all analog since 19?? exists in a digital form at some point. Digital done right is indistiquishable from clean analog. Where digital goes wrong is when the computer process that handles the data (transports in players) takes shortcuts before handing the stream to the DAC, the DAC chipset itself takes shortcuts (its remarkable to read DAC chipset reviews), or the backend analog signal is handled poorly. I just intergreated an Apogee Duet 2 that was recommended by engineers familiar with the sound quality of its analog output. To my ear its wonderful. Bad digital sound ok, good digital sounds fantastic. I no longer use my SP6b preamp and miniDSP so now I have only one DAC in the chain and the Apogee Duet 2 is very quiet at idle compared to the miniDSP. I took my TT and hooked it to the input side, applied RIAA correction in software via Pure Vinyl and now I can enjoy those recordings without handling the vinyl. I have quite a few records that either do not exist digital or if they do suffer from "squashon". For those of you that have good digital rigs I would be willing to share a sample. It's that good. IMO

If you thought the first one was entertaining try the second. http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Great point.[Y] I have several that are noise free, but most have been through the proverbial wringer.If its digital there is no need. But then it's digital and that's a problem, I suppose.

I agree, but I find that takes more than one person to contribute in order for it to be fun. I's also point out that many people like different things regarding the sound that they are trying to achieve (like we are discussing on the "Digital vs. Analog" thread. But maybe there is a way to collect into different types of music genres, which may bring like-minded people together.I believe there are many here among us whose points of view here would be very interesting. Those of us who have been here a year or more and participate regularly could filter and color opinions as to their source. I would argue against organizing it by genre because I for one like all genres and those that don't may be encouraged to expand their tastes.I propose that this section be dubbed "Music Opinions". If we are upfront that its all about an opinion and why you feel that way maybe the hate would be diminished. I love the idea of Klipsch and the PWK legacy being all about the music and this new forum would support that.

This approach is really about the equipment more than the music. Home of the digital deniers. [:@] Yeah!! Realism. Freedom! Its not only complicated, its difficult to achieve and appreciate.[8-|] When the sound quality is high from source to ear, I will take the time to listen carefully to most any new material. If its faulty I put off listening carefully until, as the result of hearing the material on an average system often a car stereo, I developed an appreciation for the music and I can then enjoy the music flaws and all.

Someone should start a subforum for sharing observations on recordings good or bad. Because on balance the performance can often be more meaningful than the quality of the recording it would be interesting to note what others think about certain recordings. Its just amazing to me how often I now listen to what sounded good years ago on average equipment that now is just plain tiring. It may be the rip,the download or the mix/mastering. I would also want to know how some might alter the original to make it listenable if EQ is the problem. Case in point Crosby Stills and Nash. The original record was delightful as I remember it. I wore two of those out during college. Now I have a high def digital download that was "remastered" and its so boomy that I put in a low shelf cutting 3db from about 170 Hz down to make it sound how I think I remember it.Another example is Alan Parsons Project - Tales of Mystery and Imagination. No boom here, but there must either be problem with the mix/mastering or the digital file itself. There are annoying high frequency distortions or artifacts. I guess it could be either. I really enjoy the music but my system now reveals the flaws. Before I go looking for a CD to rip or a place I can download a better resolution digital copy I would love to know if its the mix/mastering that is the problem. So I guess more than the Just this Minute approach already in place would be discussions centered around certain recordings.

For those instances where the dynamic range is actually being compressed (which, unfortunately, is most instances nowadays per the literally thousands of data points evidenced in the DR Database): http://www.turnmeup.org/ I really don't believe that I said this, or implied it. Rather, I'm in the "record it and produce it as it came to the microphone" camp, and personally do not like to hear postprocessing of the original tracks beyond that which is absolutely necessary to assemble into 2 channels or 5 channels, whichever the case may be. I've never had a problem with "quantization effects" of low-recording-level CDs, DVDs, or BDs. But I've had significant issues over the years (mostly in the 70s and 80s) with vinyl records that were recorded at too low a level, particularly certain DG classical disks which require an extreme amount of care and cleaning to keep grooves free of ticks and pops, and also are hyper-susceptible to infrasonic record warp signals that exercise preamps and subwoofers unnecessarily. Chris I read this thread again tonight while listening to Patsy Cline. I then put on a 1956 classical recoding lovingly transferred from tape to digital. There were lots of quiet passages that in years gone by I would not have listened to at volume because of the pops and clicks. It would appear that the cleanliness is more important than the problems associated with digital. So my question is this. What is the order of priority for material for reproduction? I tolerate a level of hiss in my fifties recordings because the music is so darn good. All the best.

That'd be a step in the right direction, but ideally they would be pointing at opposite ends of the listening postion to minimize any wash from the side walls. I treated the side walls to minimize reflections and I have now abandoned the center channel. Simply not needed. Less distortion. Thanks again for the thoughts.

I am now on my second round of trying to integrate a 2 in 4 out audio interface connected to my Mac mini. I called tech support at Apogee for help with my new Duet 2. The guy who answered the phone was very friendly, but he challenged me in a very interesting way. He intimated that I was pretending to be an audiophile. I was shocked! What in blazes had I said that made him think that? He quickly added that audiophiles never said "I don't know", So maybe I am an audio enthusiast. Why else would I vacillate between analog and digital as if I was searching for the holy grail?. No knowing the answer but enjoying the tech toys as I strive to hear the inaudible. Imagine listening to a Clarinet Concerto and hearing the players breath? Horns baby! I do know what I like, which is what we all really understand. Occasionally we like to be validated by asking those of us who have more experience or training, but I'll bet that most of us always go back to what we know. Nothing wrong with that. But its the learning that makes it more than just the sound. I have a problem with the concept of the Audiophile. He knows so much that he gets all caught up trying to understand what he is hearing so he can describe it convincingly enough that I accept his authority. Not. Cheers The enthusiast revels in what he doesn't know that he can learn while he cranks it up and enjoys the music.

I have one that I might be persuaded to sell to another forum member. Its pretty much stock with most of the capacitors replaced and the rectifier repaired. Craig looked at it and had some great suggestions, but I just sat on it.

Couldn't agree more. In fact because I could afford anything now, its way more fun to see how much bang for the buck I can get. The learning never stops and that's a good thing, even if I don't buy anything. Following this thread makes it apparent that several of us have a bit of passion about this hobby. I neither take this hobby for granted nor get too serious about it. What I really enjoy is throwing things out there that stimulates the trained and experienced amongst us to share their knowledge and experience.[]

I am using Pure Music playing 24 bit 44kHz lossless files, not FLAC. .Aside for the obvious compression problems, I was hoping that someone familiar with the way these older recordings are re-mastered could make a recommendation. In my case because I use an active crossover I tried just lowering the bass bin 2-3 db and that wasn't it. I will try putting in a shelf starting lower than my 500Hz xover point, but was hoping to get a pointer whether to start at 200 or maybe 100.

[Y] A toast is in order with this comment. Here. Here. [Y]

Where do I enroll. I am eager to learn[8-|]

As stated above, dynamic range expanders would actually work very well since there is no clipping present on most CDs,Ok, then wow. Another piece of gear to research hunt for and bag. Uh, where do you start with dynamic range expanders?[*-)]

And the struggle continues.....[H] Its so much more fun than throwing money at it.[Y]

There has been a little thread creep here but computer driven digital music is so exciting as a stable and portable music paying system that it garners a lot of interest. Before the Internet and easy access to forums you had to rely on the retailer and his agenda driven opinions or the magazine and its advertising influenced opinion. It's more work but its clearly better with the Internet. IMHO

Dave,I made a joke of my wife being non discriminating about the quality of sound in music repro, but we spend 8 weeks a summer in a place that has its own opera company, symphony, and ballet company. Its not junk and she gets that. Its funny but the folks that come there would listen to your description of the organ with rapt attention. It makes the rest of the year rubbing elbows with those who could care less much easier. Oh and we have no television there. []

Did you try collecting some of the old friends and giving that a try? I did. Works to a degree...but most have lost the ability to listen to anything but their own voices, a cell phone, or the TV. Dave your lucky. But it's all good except my wife can't distinguish between a boom box and a good stereo.