cybercoma Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 if I was forced to listen to classic country I would drive an ice pick into my ears for relief... Classic country is good highway music, if you ever make a roadtrip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Classic country is good highway music, if you ever make a roadtrip. i've probably made hundreds of prairie road trips, 6-9 hrs at a time were the norm...yee ha, hee ha hillbilly tunes of alberta are enough to make me want to slit my wrists...as soon the cities are out of reach the radio goes off and stays there until I near civilization again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 My friend took Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl, transferred it to a lossless digital format compatible with itunes, and said he's hearing things he's never heard in the songs before. A high-quality MP3 is about 320 kbps. His digital files of vinyl were 3800 kbps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 My friend took Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl, transferred it to a lossless digital format compatible with itunes, and said he's hearing things he's never heard in the songs before. A high-quality MP3 is about 320 kbps. His digital files of vinyl were 3800 kbps! I saw a program some year back examining the quality of vinyl vs digital...the conclusion was digital was superior and those who claimed vinyl was superior were actually hearing background noise/clutter that gave an impression the vinyl recording was a "fuller" sound...not that I can tell the difference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Classic country is good highway music, if you ever make a roadtrip. Roadtrip to hell maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Classic country is good highway music, if you ever make a roadtrip. i was thinking of road trip music I enjoyed, none of them country...riders on the storm-doors...radar love-golden earring...one headlight-wallflowers...long winding road-beatles...come on take a free ride-edgar winter...highway to hell-ac/dc...vetura highway-america...autobahn-kraftwerk...bat of hell-meatloaf...the entire dark side of the moon-floyd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I jumped the Rock ship (for the most part) almost 20 years ago. For me it's electronic music. But for good rock, Rush, Tool, Dream Theater, .. and some metal like Arch Enemy. ANd you are right, it's all watered down and generic sounding after some time. I can't tell what band I am listening to most of the time, they all sound the same to me now. I guess I am not the common denominator. I like Rush and Tool quite a lot. As far as metal Im a huge slayer fan... they really havent made much effort at all to get into the top 40 LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co3KgHPFZeI&ob=av3e Although... they did start playing music in tune after about 3 albums Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 i was thinking of road trip music I enjoyed, none of them country...riders on the storm-doors...radar love-golden earring...one headlight-wallflowers...long winding road-beatles...come on take a free ride-edgar winter...highway to hell-ac/dc...vetura highway-america...autobahn-kraftwerk...bat of hell-meatloaf...the entire dark side of the moon-floyd... Classic rock and classic country are what define highway music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I just drove from Regina to Abbotsford B.C. and played mostly 80's tunes. Stayed in Canmore overnight and it was mostly dead, I guess ski season starts sometime after Nov 18. What I really wanted to hear was AM talk radio, but through the mountains of BC there is nothing. So I guess it's either Satellite radio or whatever compilation cds are in the car. Too bad about CDs dying out, but they had it coming. Hi rez music should be the norm by now but once again greedy corporations can't share so make 2 competing formats that kill each other off. Meanwhile kids don't know what sounds good with those stupid ear buds and compressed music files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I saw a program some year back examining the quality of vinyl vs digital...the conclusion was digital was superior and those who claimed vinyl was superior were actually hearing background noise/clutter that gave an impression the vinyl recording was a "fuller" sound... not that I can tell the difference... And I've seen hundreds of other technical sources that say that's crap! You have to remember that the music industry made a huge investment into CDs and digital technology. They are about as unbiased in the press as a tobacco company! The dynamic range alone was one vital factor where vinyl outshone digital. The truth is that digital has only recently met and exceeded the quality of unscratched vinyl. BlueRay dvds ARE better than vinyl! This is the reason that Neil Young, who has steadfastly refused to allow any of his songs where he still had the rights to be released on CDs, to change his mind. CDs were not as good as vinyl, period. Neil himself is a bit of a techy and understood this. Now his fans are delighted to be able to buy BlueRay collections of his material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 29, 2011 Report Share Posted December 29, 2011 I saw a program some year back examining the quality of vinyl vs digital...the conclusion was digital was superior and those who claimed vinyl was superior were actually hearing background noise/clutter that gave an impression the vinyl recording was a "fuller" sound...not that I can tell the difference... This is something I've heard more than once before. Yet whenever I let people hear my system playing vinyl they all comment on the difference in sound quality between the vinyl and digital. Overwhelmingly they prefer the good old turntable to the CD. Not that I'm running a good old turntable, I had a Rega, a very good TT but have just very recently replaced it with a new Pro-Ject RPM 1.3 Genie coupled with the matching Phono Box II TT amp. Here's a picture of it, definately not A TT for the DJ scratcher croud, this is Audiophile grade. I Love This TT It sounds absolutely sublime. For Christmas the girlfriend picked up a new copy of Dark Side Of The Moon for me on 180gr Rhino Vinyl half speed mastered from the original pressing, fantastic sound quality. In January my receiver is going on the hit list and I'll be replacing it with the NAD T748, once again I'm sure I'll see a jump in sound quality. I really don't buy very many CD's for me its vinyl all the way, I'd say I buy about 20 albums for every CD I buy. Sure, most of the vinyl I get is used but if properly cared for it has an amazing shelf life. My main source is a store called All That Jazz in Cookstown, he wont sell used vinyl unless its in great condition. So I probably will miss CD but in a way its a moot point as I'm sure there'll be plenty of used CD sales going on anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_barilko Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 So I probably will miss CD but in a way its a moot point as I'm sure there'll be plenty of used CD sales going on anyway. Sold all my remaining CDs for $100 this past summer- even five years ago I could have gotten $300 if not more-glad to see the back of them just the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Angus, I heard about Regas and Pro-Ject. Kind of budget do you need for those tables? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Angus, I heard about Regas and Pro-Ject. Kind of budget do you need for those tables? That depends, Rega can be very pricey gear so my old TT was a used one that I picked up for the bargain basement price of $600, a very good price since new it would have run me around $1400. My new Pro-Ject has been receiving rave reviews with reviewers comparing it favourably to tables costing three or four times as much. After listening to it for a while I have to agree with them. The TT comes with an Ortophon OM10 Red cartridge and costs $500, add another $200 for the phono pre amp and total cost is about $700, not bad at all considering the sound quality. Now I can't wait to get my new NAD receiver and see how it sounds with that. Eventually I'll have two systems, one HT and one stereo for purely musical listening duties. I'm thinking something like a Roksan CD and integrated amp coupled with the Pro-Ject and a pair of Revolver speakers for the audio system. That'll have to wait a little while though since the Roksan components come to $3500 and the Revolvers are about $3000 a pair. I'm kinda wondering how the girlfriend will react when she finds out there'll be a total of two systems with nine speakers and a sub in the living room, should be interesting to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 That depends, Rega can be very pricey gear so my old TT was a used one that I picked up for the bargain basement price of $600, a very good price since new it would have run me around $1400. My new Pro-Ject has been receiving rave reviews with reviewers comparing it favourably to tables costing three or four times as much. After listening to it for a while I have to agree with them. The TT comes with an Ortophon OM10 Red cartridge and costs $500, add another $200 for the phono pre amp and total cost is about $700, not bad at all considering the sound quality. Now I can't wait to get my new NAD receiver and see how it sounds with that. Eventually I'll have two systems, one HT and one stereo for purely musical listening duties. I'm thinking something like a Roksan CD and integrated amp coupled with the Pro-Ject and a pair of Revolver speakers for the audio system. That'll have to wait a little while though since the Roksan components come to $3500 and the Revolvers are about $3000 a pair. I'm kinda wondering how the girlfriend will react when she finds out there'll be a total of two systems with nine speakers and a sub in the living room, should be interesting to say the least. Really that's not a bad price at all. I was looking at picking up an SL-1200 for some mixing purposes, and they clock in at about a grand a peice. But they are made for durability more than musicability. I just don't have enough records, and no real avenues to pick up new wax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was thinking of getting into vinyl but not to that extent! I've got a 2 channel system that I've been tweaking to get the most out of digital, mostly red book cds right now. I bought an Oppo 95 which has won rave reviews from the digital music fans as it has the best DAC out there these days and an excellent analog section. It has a volume and XLR stereo outs so I connect it directly to my amp. Not too shabby, but I'm always wondering about getting better sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I was thinking of getting into vinyl but not to that extent! I've got a 2 channel system that I've been tweaking to get the most out of digital, mostly red book cds right now. I bought an Oppo 95 which has won rave reviews from the digital music fans as it has the best DAC out there these days and an excellent analog section. It has a volume and XLR stereo outs so I connect it directly to my amp. Not too shabby, but I'm always wondering about getting better sound. Are you handy with wood? If so, you might consider rolling your own loudspeaker enclosures. This is the weak link today. The marketing trend with store-bought speakers is towards smaller units. This defies physics for tone and efficiency! They talk about using "space age" cones and magnets but this is just technobabble. This is the reason why modern systems are forced into amplifiers of several hundred watts for even apartment systems. The extra power is to try and overcome the efficiencies of today's speaker cabinets. In the 50's theatres achieved LOUD movie sound with only 50 watt drivers! That was with only one driver in one cabinet for the whole theatre! But the cabinets were the size of small refrigerators. Those classic hifi designs are mostly public domain now and can be easily googled. If you're good with cutting plywood and "gluing and screwing" you can make some MARVELLOUS designs! Some nice wood stain can make them quite "woman approvable", too. Just remember to use solid wood or good quality plywood, like Baltic birch. You don't want any voids between the layers. If the wood can "wiggle" it will suck out the bass frequencies. When you want to choose a speaker send me a PM and I'll tell you some convenient Cdn sources. Edited December 31, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Are you handy with wood? If so, you might consider rolling your own loudspeaker enclosures. This is the weak link today. The marketing trend with store-bought speakers is towards smaller units. This defies physics for tone and efficiency! They talk about using "space age" cones and magnets but this is just technobabble. This is the reason why modern systems are forced into amplifiers of several hundred watts for even apartment systems. The extra power is to try and overcome the efficiencies of today's speaker cabinets. In the 50's theatres achieved LOUD movie sound with only 50 watt drivers! That was with only one driver in one cabinet for the whole theatre! But the cabinets were the size of small refrigerators. Those classic hifi designs are mostly public domain now and can be easily googled. If you're good with cutting plywood and "gluing and screwing" you can make some MARVELLOUS designs! Some nice wood stain can make them quite "woman approvable", too. Just remember to use solid wood or good quality plywood, like Baltic birch. You don't want any voids between the layers. If the wood can "wiggle" it will suck out the bass frequencies. When you want to choose a speaker send me a PM and I'll tell you some convenient Cdn sources. While I agree that in some cases bigger is better. I am currently running with a pair of Rockit 8s as studio monitors while mastering and mixing, and just love the sound out of them. Actually gave up my Missions which I gave up my Paradigms for. Self powered sent through the mixer from the computer. But so far, absolutely loving these KRKs. But I agree the enclosers need to be of the right size for the driver you are using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Some good points on speakers Bill, thats why I bought my Klipsch as mains, they stand about 4' tall and are about 18" deep. They utilize twin 6 1/4" drivers with a Tatrix horn for highs in each enclosure and each is twin port vented (rear fireing). If you know Klipsch you know they've always used horns for the highs and are quite articulate as well as having an ability to really pound for long periods of time. In short, they're good enough for now. On the other hand I'm going to buy a pair of PSB Alphas for the girlfriends system, these are a small speaker but have a sound far beyond their physical size. Since her system will be in the kitchen they should be fine, eventually she'll inherit my Velodyne sub to go with them. For myself, well when I pick up the new NAD I'll also grab a pair of PSB B5's for the rears and the JBL Pro monitors will be relegated to side channel duty as its a 7.1 receiver. When it comes to power sources I can't say enough about the NAD, compared to other offerings it really is very good. I've compared it to most including Harmon Kardon and it far outshines them as far as musicality goes. As for power, well its an NAD, need I say more? The problem with modern receivers is that they must be a Jack of all Trades. As such the pure reproduction of 2 channel musical sources quite often suffers. NAD have managed to maintain very nice reproduction quality while also doing all the other stuff. I've been a Hi-Fi junkie for most of my life, really, I love this stuff. At the end of the day though it comes down to Vynil for me, just love that sound when played on a decent system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 I've been a Hi-Fi junkie for most of my life, really, I love this stuff. At the end of the day though it comes down to Vynil for me, just love that sound when played on a decent system. Me too, Angus, although more from a "build it" perspective. Me, I can't see the point in using small speakers and cabs, throwing away tons of efficiency and tone and then trying to get it back with more power and exotic materials. I'm not saying it can't be done but it is an inefficient and therefore MUCH more expensive way to go about it! I run a vacuum tube Bogen receiver, about 30 watts per side. I have 4 70's style larger cabinets mounted on shelf brackets towards ceiling height. My turntables vary, favouring an early 80's style strobe style Sony with a Pickering cartridge. I have to smile at some of the modern tables. Many are actually poorer technical specs than what was common in the golden years! And more expensive! That's because of marketing and production volumes. A thrift shop vintage turntable can be an excellent bargain, especially if you can get it serviced if it needs a new belt or whatever. Stylii for the better cartridges are still readily available on the Net. Older designs of cabs, particularly classic Klipsch or better yet, Altec Lansing studio monitors are available on the Net if you google deep enough. Me, I would never use a speaker with less than a 12" cone. That's my techy side coming through! You need a big cone to properly reproduce a long bass wavelength. A 15" would be even better! Some designs get away without a horn but certainly a horn makes it better. You might want to google up and read about the Altec Lansing "Voice of the Theater" cabinet, which is truly famous! A good driver for such cabinets might set you back about $125 or less, if you know where to source. The large size can be a bit much for today's smaller rooms but for those of us who can squeeze them in the reproduction is mind-boggling. I wouldn't get too hung up on the specs of solid state amplifiers or receivers, if I were you. Even the crudest of SS units will feature distortion specs of under .25 %. Given that the human ear cannot distinguish differences in distortion levels below 3% it is ridiculous to compare one unit with .1% THD against another featuring .15% THD. Even though distortion is cumulative when added up through all the units in the chain to your ear any modern system will be adequate. No, what you pay for is features and durability. Knobs that won't fall off, in other words! Except when I'm building an amplifier, I must confess I never think about such things. I just crank up some ZZ Top, to 11! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I've been a hifi fan a long time myself and have probably spent far too much on it. I currently have a 7.1 theatre system with an HD projector as well as the 2 channel system. I love Paradigm and have the Signature S6 in the 2 channel system, so I don't think I could do any better making my own speakers, but I am considering perhaps an integrated amp so I could get some pre amp functions to add a turntable to. Does NAD make a decent integrated amp? I think I'd be looking for something on the slightly warm side, like a Denon or Parasound house sound. Edited December 31, 2011 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I've been a hifi fan a long time myself and have probably spent far too much on it. I currently have a 7.1 theatre system with an HD projector as well as the 2 channel system. I love Paradigm and have the Signature S6 in the 2 channel system, so I don't think I could do any better making my own speakers, but I am considering perhaps an integrated amp so I could get some pre amp functions to add a turntable to. Does NAD make a decent integrated amp? I think I'd be looking for something on the slightly warm side, like a Denon or Parasound house sound. I like Paradigm too. After reading this thread I'm now thinking about upgrading my lo-fi receiver with an integrated amp (I don't need a tuner in the internet age anyway). I like what I see at NAD: the master series looks really nice. Admittedly I'm not a fan of vinyl - yes, it sounds really good but I can live with the compromise of digital music (i.e. slightly inferior sound quality versus convenience, portability, mobility, easy to find, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I like Paradigm too. After reading this thread I'm now thinking about upgrading my lo-fi receiver with an integrated amp (I don't need a tuner in the internet age anyway). I like what I see at NAD: the master series looks really nice. Admittedly I'm not a fan of vinyl - yes, it sounds really good but I can live with the compromise of digital music (i.e. slightly inferior sound quality versus convenience, portability, mobility, easy to find, etc). As I mentioned early in the thread, msj, although CDs are not as hifi as good vinyl the new BlueRay DVD audio formats are BETTER! Digital has finally caught up with vinyl and exceeded it, after all these years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Nothing beats the warm sound of vinyl on a tube system. Yeah, it's not crystal clear like a CD, but perfection doesn't mean it sounds better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I'll have to check out some of those blu ray music dvd's too. It's too bad that the old DVD-audio and SACD formats went belly up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.