Novice Question.

[ski2xblack]

Don't mind me, just gryping about the path the industry followed, seemingly in disregard to basic realities. All my rigs have at least one flavor or another of eq that I use for loudness compensation. Most of my listening is done at way below reference levels, so I can't live without it.

Another part that I often forget about is the source recording. Some of them just suck and I have to remember that isn't the fault of my system

Indeed. A good system will get out of the way of the music. Your rig is so good that it will get completely out of the way of whatever is on the source material, exposing all it's glory, or faults as the case may be. Many recordings leave a lot to be desired. (This is further justification for an equalizer/tone controls.)

I may be a stubborn old fool, but at least I'm in good company. Toole himself endorses eq/tone controls, and also criticizes their absence on modern kit.

 

[Gio-G]

Don't mind me, just gryping about the path the industry followed, seemingly in disregard to basic realities. All my rigs have at least one flavor or another of eq that I use for loudness compensation. Most of my listening is done at way below reference levels, so I can't live without it.


Indeed. A good system will get out of the way of the music. Your rig is so good that it will get completely out of the way of whatever is on the source material, exposing all it's glory, or faults as the case may be. Many recordings leave a lot to be desired. (This is further justification for an equalizer/tone controls.)

I may be a stubborn old fool, but at least I'm in good company. Toole himself endorses eq/tone controls, and also criticizes their absence on modern kit.

I'm right there with you!

I'm stuck with my stuff because I like it but I know very well there are better or at least equal things out there for less $$. Stubborn is probably part of it, and laziness too.

And the joys of a total poop recording do really come to life. Not lately, but very early on in my system building phase I was questioning if I made good choices. As it turned out a lot of my early CDs were overly compressed and poorly recorded hard rock hits and the like so my playback was not good.

Luckily I didn't voice that at an audio dealership or I'd probably have 22K worth of cables here to "equalize" my sound.

Off to a party for the night.

Stay in touch!

 

[m. zillch]

lpf= low pass filter. hpf= high pass filter.

Speaking of which, I hate that terminology everyone uses. When we talk about filtering something aren't we usually talking about what they filter out? Not what they fail to filter out?

I have no problem with "low-cut filter", of course, because that's what it does.

 

[lovinthehd]

Speaking of which, I hate that terminology everyone uses. When we talk about filtering something aren't we usually talking about what they filter out? Not what they fail to filter out?

I have no problem with "low-cut filter", of course, because that's what it does.

One term for looking at it from one direction, and another term for a different view. I usually call a low cut filter simply the high pass filter it is

 

[m. zillch]

One term for looking at it from one direction, and another term for a different view. I usually call a low cut filter simply the high pass filter it is

I guess using this methodology we should call IR and UV filters for camera lenses "visible light pass filters".

 

[m. zillch]

I may be a stubborn old fool, but at least I'm in good company. Toole himself endorses eq/tone controls, and also criticizes their absence on modern kit.

When I hear the snobby audiophiles ramble on about how they prefer a "purist" signal with no stages of EQ I love breaking it to them that their precious format, vinyl, is heavily dependent on using EQ [specifically RIAA]. First they have a blank stare like a deer in headlights, then they start shaking, and finally their head explodes!

 

[lovinthehd]

I guess using this methodology we should call IR and UV filters for camera lenses "visible light pass filters".

Not a camera guy, but that doesn't sound right.

 

[m. zillch]

Q. What does a filter do?
A. It filters.
Q. Multiple choice: What does this verb "filter" mean?

A. to allow something to pass through
B. to filter , um, block or remove something

I prefer B.

 

[Nondemo01]

Don't mind me, just gryping about the path the industry followed, seemingly in disregard to basic realities. All my rigs have at least one flavor or another of eq that I use for loudness compensation. Most of my listening is done at way below reference levels, so I can't live without it.


Indeed. A good system will get out of the way of the music. Your rig is so good that it will get completely out of the way of whatever is on the source material, exposing all it's glory, or faults as the case may be. Many recordings leave a lot to be desired. (This is further justification for an equalizer/tone controls.)

I may be a stubborn old fool, but at least I'm in good company. Toole himself endorses eq/tone controls, and also criticizes their absence on modern kit.

+1 for bringing back tone/EQ controls! Sometimes, I want warm mellow, other times I want clinical - all without having to swap out a speaker cable. (Joking.)

The 5 band EQ was one of the deciding factors behind my purchase of the McIntosh MA352. (other than the cool blue meters and tube lights that is...)

 

[m. zillch]

I'm told that although there has been some gear without tone controls since the dawn of audio, we can attribute its almost complete disappearance from many high end brands because of one man: Mark Levinson. He released a unit without tone controls because, um, "signal purity" and then his competitors felt they all had to follow suit in their upcoming lines or they would be dismissed by the high end press as being "mere pedestrian gear for common folk".

 

[m. zillch]

A similar stigma exists in turntables to this day. I guess in the 1950s there were automatic turntables (meaning the tonearm can automatically lowers itself onto the first song to initialize play and then either returns to its rest or replays that side at the end) which unfortunately compromised arm motion slightly during actual play. So this led to automatic designs getting a bad reputation and audiophiles looking for the best sound stuck to manual turntables. Thing is, we figured out how to send people to the moon (1969) so I'm pretty sure we also figured out how make an automatic turntable which didn't compromise performance, but it didn't matter: to audiophiles "automatic = pedestrian" so to this day, a half century later, we still almost exclusively see manual turntables being made by the most expensive brands even costing a half million dollars.

 

[Verdinut]

A similar stigma exists in turntables to this day. I guess in the 1950s there were automatic turntables (meaning the tonearm can automatically lowers itself onto the first song to initialize play and then either returns to its rest or replays that side at the end) which unfortunately compromised arm motion slightly during actual play. So this led to automatic designs getting a bad reputation and audiophiles looking for the best sound stuck to manual turntables. Thing is, we figured out how to send people to the moon (1969) so I'm pretty sure we also figured out how make an automatic turntable which didn't compromise performance, but it didn't matter: to audiophiles "automatic = pedestrian" so to this day, a half century later, we still almost exclusively see manual turntables being made by the most expensive brands even costing a half million dollars.

Also in the 1950s there were turntables on which you could stack several 78s or 45s that would automatically play one after the other:

 

[m. zillch]

^Way before that they even had (clunky) automatic record players that were also flippers!

Many modern automatic turntables have zero contact with the arm during actual play so the notion they inherently "compromise" the sound is ridiculous. Of course the instant response of the audiophiles to preserve their fantasy is: "Well, see, they had to spend time, effort, and money on making that automation which elite people like me feel would better be spent on just focusing on a manual designs like this $500k TT."

 

[TLS Guy]

A similar stigma exists in turntables to this day. I guess in the 1950s there were automatic turntables (meaning the tonearm can automatically lowers itself onto the first song to initialize play and then either returns to its rest or replays that side at the end) which unfortunately compromised arm motion slightly during actual play. So this led to automatic designs getting a bad reputation and audiophiles looking for the best sound stuck to manual turntables. Thing is, we figured out how to send people to the moon (1969) so I'm pretty sure we also figured out how make an automatic turntable which didn't compromise performance, but it didn't matter: to audiophiles "automatic = pedestrian" so to this day, a half century later, we still almost exclusively see manual turntables being made by the most expensive brands even costing a half million dollars.

That is a tough one, as you are up against increased inertia and increased moving mass. There are however devices that can lift a PU arm at the end of the side and not add any problems. Squishman has a very nice one that works well. The fact is that turntables that are best are simple and elegantly designed. Automatic turntables have a deservedly bad rep.