Search results

This thread belongs in the DIY forum.

I bought the first season of Smallville when it first came out on DVD. I enjoyed it for a while, but began losing interest several episodes in. I never bothered with the second season after that.

An update: I listened to my studio monitors over the weekend. I found myself enjoying them a lot. So much so, in fact, that they may end up being my favorites. This creates a dilemma, though. I have a hard time fully appreciating the monitors when a pair of B&Ws costing 7-1/2 times as much...

I couldn't agree more. You don't want to become the kind of obsessive audiophile who sits around going "I know this group sucks, but listen to those pristine cymbals!" Choose music based on what you enjoy (surely that category includes a fair number of titles that are also recorded well.)...

I agree. Amps may have some very slight impact on the overall sound (though I am not convinced that they do), but this is utterly trivial compared the differences between speakers. Speakers+room account for at least 95% of the way any system sounds (my guess is closer to 99%.)

I have a pair of (passive) studio monitors. They sound quite good. They don't sound as good as my primary speakers, but that comes as no surprise as they were a lot cheaper. I would say that they are as good as any comparably priced bookshelves.

There are a huge number of bands that I have not heard, but have heard of because I read a lot of music magazines. I can honestly say that I have never seen even a passing reference to either of those. They must be really, really obscure.

I have always thought that the preamp has a much bigger impact on SQ than the amp. After all, it has more opportunity to effect the signal.

True enough. For me, using a center identical to my mains is physically impossible, and none of the "matching" centers actually do provide an exact timbre match. Under these circumstances, phantom center sounds noticeably better because it is the only option that gives a seamless front soundstage.

I enjoy listening to a wide variety of music, but to me New Age has the best sound and recording quality. If I had to choose a single reference CD it would either be Seven Veils by Robert Rich or Book of Roses by Andreas Vollenweider.

That could easily have something to do with the fact that you downloaded it. I think sound quality should be judged based on the CD itself, as I would hardly consider downloads to be reliable in that respect.

For shelf mounting, I would strongly recommend either a sealed or front-ported design. I think it is going to be very difficult to get rear ports to sound good. I would also look for speakers that image well without toe-in, as you wil be limited in your ability to toe them in.

We weren't talking about tape hiss, we were talking about compression. Yes, BB has some hiss, but no more than I expect in recordings of that era. (That the Beatles records sounded better is not surprising, they had George Martin and Abbey Road, after all.)

Never buy without auditioning, unless it is to take advantage of a 30 day trial in which you do audition.

All of the new releases that I have bought in the last 5 years have sounded great, and better than most of the ones from earlier than that. Either I am just lucky, or it is because very little of what I like is "mainstream".

They are just that good. (For about $1000 less, the 705s will get you most of the way there. I would say 98-99%.)

My favorite of his so far is Corporal Claypool's Big Bucket of Bernie Brains (with Les Claypool of Primus.)

Which ones? My CDs of Satanic Majesty and Beggar's banquet sound great, given their vintage.

It is a great CD. It has some of the most impressive use of stereo imaging that I have heard. There are sounds tha seem to roll across the room and crash against the walls like ocean waves.

Dudes: Summarize! These posts have grown waaaaay too long and wordy. I gave up reading them a while back, and I'll bet most others have too. Thanks.:)