Is music reproduction a dieing breed? (BEWARE OF RANTING)

[yepimonfire]

ive recently been slowly but surely upgrading my system, one of these upgrades is almost a downgrade, but more moving my system in the direction i want it to be. im currently using a 2ch setup and until the recording industry gets there acts together i doubt ill go any more because i mostly always listen to music, occasionally ill watch something on the science channel that provokes deeps thoughts on the universe, but im really not a HT guy. im rather irritated at whats happening in the music industry, over compressed recordings that sound like crap, while i will admit i have never heard a CD with good dynamic range, i have been to several concerts and can say they certainly deliver the thrilling peaks and falls that give music its beauty. most of the receivers these days are either HT A/V receivers that have alot of bells and whistles on them, while this is good, someone like me who wants it for the music is paying for all those bells and whistles, you got 5 amps sitting there doing nothing and all this surround processing doing nothing and all these video stuff doing nothing that your paying for.

so i went into the 2ch section of receivers on my favorite electronics websites, all of them seem poor, several things that should be included but arent are, DAC's that can process SACD/PCM/Dolby Digital etc. sub crossovers, ive looked and looked for a 2ch with a decent sub crossover and most of them have a fixed crossover stuck at 100hz, some of them with no high-pass. crappy bass/treble controls, who wants a boomy 10dB gain at 100hz? or a harsh treble gain at 10khz? last but not least, if you dare, take the top off one of these things, they are mostly empty space with a POS power supply, most of them i have demoed run out of gas before i can get to a decent volume level and start distorting. do people even care about quality music components anymore? i've almost considered buying professional gear just because home based equipment sucks.


yes i am ranting, you were warned

 

[TLS Guy]

ive recently been slowly but surely upgrading my system, one of these upgrades is almost a downgrade, but more moving my system in the direction i want it to be. im currently using a 2ch setup and until the recording industry gets there acts together i doubt ill go any more because i mostly always listen to music, occasionally ill watch something on the science channel that provokes deeps thoughts on the universe, but im really not a HT guy. im rather irritated at whats happening in the music industry, over compressed recordings that sound like crap, while i will admit i have never heard a CD with good dynamic range, i have been to several concerts and can say they certainly deliver the thrilling peaks and falls that give music its beauty. most of the receivers these days are either HT A/V receivers that have alot of bells and whistles on them, while this is good, someone like me who wants it for the music is paying for all those bells and whistles, you got 5 amps sitting there doing nothing and all this surround processing doing nothing and all these video stuff doing nothing that your paying for.

so i went into the 2ch section of receivers on my favorite electronics websites, all of them seem poor, several things that should be included but arent are, DAC's that can process SACD/PCM/Dolby Digital etc. sub crossovers, ive looked and looked for a 2ch with a decent sub crossover and most of them have a fixed crossover stuck at 100hz, some of them with no high-pass. crappy bass/treble controls, who wants a boomy 10dB gain at 100hz? or a harsh treble gain at 10khz? last but not least, if you dare, take the top off one of these things, they are mostly empty space with a POS power supply, most of them i have demoed run out of gas before i can get to a decent volume level and start distorting. do people even care about quality music components anymore? i've almost considered buying professional gear just because home based equipment sucks.


yes i am ranting, you were warned

May be you should sample some of the recordings from the links I sent you in your previous thread. You will not find dynamic range compression in evidence. On the majority of recordings you will find great care has been taken in all aspects of the production.

As to the rest your wants are ahead of your budget.

There are good two channel preamps and power amps out there. There are also capable integrated amps out there but of lower power.

I don't know of any of these amps that have a sub out. That is because they are aimed at a market that eschews processing. However it can be done with preamp and amp, you just need a either two subs and a couple of Y connectors, or a two channel buffer amp two Y connectors and one sub.

For two channel using the DAC and DSD decoders in the player makes the most sense.

I'm far from a receiver fan, and have never owned one, and would always recommend a pre pro and separate amps for the best results.

 

[yepimonfire]

yes i know not all music suffers from DRC, fortunately for me the genre i am into has alot of art and passion put into it because it is not mainstream pop crap, one of the greatest recordings ive heard would be Tyr's By the light of the northern star, or obscuras cosmogenesis, neither of those suffer compression issues. im also aware my wants are beyond my budget and wasnt really asking for help, one of the things i would like to see happen in music though is multi-channel take off, there honestly isnt an escuse for it not to imo. when i finally get around to putting together my dream system it will probably be built using active crossovers, seperate amps and pre-amps etc. my main issue that is stopping me from doing this is the cost of pre-amps is outrageous, i have yet to find one (aside from pyle (of sh*t)) that is below 1600 dollars. i actually could afford the active x-over, seperate amps etc. but i cant in my right mind pay 1600 dollars for a pre-amp.

 

[highfigh]

ive recently been slowly but surely upgrading my system, one of these upgrades is almost a downgrade, but more moving my system in the direction i want it to be. im currently using a 2ch setup and until the recording industry gets there acts together i doubt ill go any more because i mostly always listen to music, occasionally ill watch something on the science channel that provokes deeps thoughts on the universe, but im really not a HT guy. im rather irritated at whats happening in the music industry, over compressed recordings that sound like crap, while i will admit i have never heard a CD with good dynamic range, i have been to several concerts and can say they certainly deliver the thrilling peaks and falls that give music its beauty. most of the receivers these days are either HT A/V receivers that have alot of bells and whistles on them, while this is good, someone like me who wants it for the music is paying for all those bells and whistles, you got 5 amps sitting there doing nothing and all this surround processing doing nothing and all these video stuff doing nothing that your paying for.

so i went into the 2ch section of receivers on my favorite electronics websites, all of them seem poor, several things that should be included but arent are, DAC's that can process SACD/PCM/Dolby Digital etc. sub crossovers, ive looked and looked for a 2ch with a decent sub crossover and most of them have a fixed crossover stuck at 100hz, some of them with no high-pass. crappy bass/treble controls, who wants a boomy 10dB gain at 100hz? or a harsh treble gain at 10khz? last but not least, if you dare, take the top off one of these things, they are mostly empty space with a POS power supply, most of them i have demoed run out of gas before i can get to a decent volume level and start distorting. do people even care about quality music components anymore? i've almost considered buying professional gear just because home based equipment sucks.


yes i am ranting, you were warned

The compression issue is caused by the industry giving people what they want- if you look at marketing trends, you'll see that people want portability, using iPods and other MP3 players. They come with ear buds and can't reproduce the dynamics the way a full-blown home or car system can and since data takes up space on a hard drive or chip, they remove some of the information, causing degradation.

Keep looking- the equipment and music without bad production values are out there.

 

[ski2xblack]

Sounds like suicide is your only option.

JK, y-onfire.

No, I feel you, you've got a bad case of audioholism. Many recordings are produced poorly, particularly the bands/musicians I listen to most frequently. Getting bent out of shape is understandable but not worth much investment of mental energy. Do as TLS suggests and patronize those whose production quality meets your requirements...if your favorite musicians don't record there, it's just an opportunity to expand your musical horizons.

Speaking of mental energy, there are many head-games you can play with yourself. From simply having realistic expectations, to, say, a more elaborate and ritualized approach to listening, such self-directed aspects of listening can allow you to let go of certain distractions and get into the music much easier. (I read a thread on another forum going into such sensual detail about the process of playing an album it was almost pornographic. It certainly made me want to play that album, recording and gear flaws be damned!)

 

[yepimonfire]

speaking of setting up a pro system, anyone got any ideas as to where i can get a 2ch pre-amp that is not outrageously expensive? links would be nice, im going to start saving every cent of my left over money for this

 

[3db]

JK, y-onfire.

No, I feel you, you've got a bad case of audioholism. Many recordings are produced poorly, particularly the bands/musicians I listen to most frequently. Getting bent out of shape is understandable but not worth much investment of mental energy. Do as TLS suggests and patronize those whose production quality meets your requirements...if your favorite musicians don't record there, it's just an opportunity to expand your musical horizons.

Speaking of mental energy, there are many head-games you can play with yourself. From simply having realistic expectations, to, say, a more elaborate and ritualized approach to listening, such self-directed aspects of listening can allow you to let go of certain distractions and get into the music much easier. (I read a thread on another forum going into such sensual detail about the process of playing an album it was almost pornographic. It certainly made me want to play that album, recording and gear flaws be damned!)

I find the compression on a lot of the Indie labels to be far less then the big commercial pressings. Its music, not loudness selling the indie stuff. Perfect example is the "White Stripes" first three albums. Very dynamic and has me running for the volume controls from time to time.

 

[JerryLove]

speaking of setting up a pro system, anyone got any ideas as to where i can get a 2ch pre-amp that is not outrageously expensive? links would be nice, im going to start saving every cent of my left over money for this

Have you ruled out a Yamaha AVR with pre-amp outputs for some reason?

What number is not "outrageously expensive" here?

 

[yepimonfire]

well nearly all pre-amps ive seen have are near 1000 dollars, i dont see justifying a price like that, im talking stereo pre-amps here, not expensive processors. and what models have pre-outs that are not so expensive? as far as i know analog pre-amps are nothing more then input signal boosters with switching.

 

[JerryLove]

well nearly all pre-amps ive seen have are near 1000 dollars, i dont see justifying a price like that, im talking stereo pre-amps here, not expensive processors. and what models have pre-outs that are not so expensive? as far as i know analog pre-amps are nothing more then input signal boosters with switching.

Emotiva stereo pre-amp is $400
http://emotiva.com/usp1.shtm

I've used an old Pioneer VSX9700 on many occasions as a stereo pre-amp. Right now I use an Integra I picked up off E-Bay for $200. It even has a "pure direct" mode.

 

[yepimonfire]

im guessing it would be much cheaper to use a receiver as a pre-amp then?

 

[JerryLove]

im guessing it would be much cheaper to use a receiver as a pre-amp then?

For 2-channel? I'd suspect you could manage to halve that with a B-stock Yammy. But since that's less than half what you idetified as too "outrageously expensive", I'm hoping it meets your needs.

 

[yepimonfire]

400 is alot, but better then 1600, the only reason i have considered doing a pre/pro type system is to run active crossovers, i have no idea how much better they sound in the mid-highs, but i know there is a clearly audible difference between using the passive x-over in my sub and the electronic one in my marantz, almost night and day. if it would have the same effect on the mid and highs i most certainly would shell out 1000 dollars for equipment (thats about what it would cost for 2 2ch amps, and active x-over, and the pre-amp) actually, come to think of it i think my marantz actually has pre-outs.

 

[oppman99]

The Emotiva USP Jerry mentioned might be what you're looking for at a relatively affordable price. It does have a sub out and you can adjust the crossover from 50-250 Hz. It will allow you to run your speakers full range or crossed over with a sub. If you watch the used market, you can pick one up for around $300. I won't say there aren't higher quality options out there, but it is a very good value in my opinion. No tone controls, but I find I really don't miss them. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me. As you can see from my sig, I use one for my main 2 channel rig.

 

[JerryLove]

actually, come to think of it i think my marantz actually has pre-outs.

I can't image why you wouldn't start with the Marantz. You can always change that later.

 

[highfigh]

ive recently been slowly but surely upgrading my system, one of these upgrades is almost a downgrade, but more moving my system in the direction i want it to be. im currently using a 2ch setup and until the recording industry gets there acts together i doubt ill go any more because i mostly always listen to music, occasionally ill watch something on the science channel that provokes deeps thoughts on the universe, but im really not a HT guy. im rather irritated at whats happening in the music industry, over compressed recordings that sound like crap, while i will admit i have never heard a CD with good dynamic range, i have been to several concerts and can say they certainly deliver the thrilling peaks and falls that give music its beauty. most of the receivers these days are either HT A/V receivers that have alot of bells and whistles on them, while this is good, someone like me who wants it for the music is paying for all those bells and whistles, you got 5 amps sitting there doing nothing and all this surround processing doing nothing and all these video stuff doing nothing that your paying for.

so i went into the 2ch section of receivers on my favorite electronics websites, all of them seem poor, several things that should be included but arent are, DAC's that can process SACD/PCM/Dolby Digital etc. sub crossovers, ive looked and looked for a 2ch with a decent sub crossover and most of them have a fixed crossover stuck at 100hz, some of them with no high-pass. crappy bass/treble controls, who wants a boomy 10dB gain at 100hz? or a harsh treble gain at 10khz? last but not least, if you dare, take the top off one of these things, they are mostly empty space with a POS power supply, most of them i have demoed run out of gas before i can get to a decent volume level and start distorting. do people even care about quality music components anymore? i've almost considered buying professional gear just because home based equipment sucks.


yes i am ranting, you were warned

Have you seen this?
http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3363.asp#

It has jumpers for separating the preamp and power amp as well as being rated for 4 Ohms, if you should want to use the power amp section.

Consumer level audio has never been particularly amazing- that's the reason people get into the high-end stuff. I read comments by people about the "Golden Years" of audio being the '70s and '80s- that's a bunch of crap. The equipment that was available then wasn't particularly great and most of it was actually pretty bad unless "good" means that it was heavy. Sony had their Audio Lab and Esprit series, which led the way to their ES line and Pioneer came out with their Elite line in response to the ES. In Japan and Europe, most of the other major companies had a higher level line but since people in the US were snapping up all of the crap and thinking they had gold, there wasn't much point in trying to sell "better" when "good" was selling like hotcakes. Remember- over time, the market dictates what will be offered for sale and unless you look at the niche markets, you won't usually find the best goods.

 

[jliedeka]

It's true there isn't a ton of music recorded in surround. Most of what there is uses gimicky mixes but not all. I've actually started using the surround modes in my receiver with two channel music. That may offend some purists but I think the modern processors do a great job of extracting ambiance from two channel material and producing a more enveloping experience. I've tried Dolby PL IIx and the DTS equivalent. Not sure if either is better than the other. I'm also into home theater so I have a 5.1 setup anyway. If there are engineers who can mix 5 channels of sound for movies, they ought to be able to do it for music in a way that sounds good. Surround music really is better even if it is only upconverted two channel but I hope I find more good stuff recorded that way.

Jim

 

[yepimonfire]

How it works and which one i beleive is better.

" I've tried Dolby PL IIx and the DTS equivalent. Not sure if either is better than the other."

ive done several backwards engineering test with tones and out of phase signals, etc and i can say PLIIx is MUCH better, DTS neo:6 does not have very good surround channel seperation and it almost sounds like if you connect the left positive and right positive to one speaker, very flat sounding and it works on what i call "similar differences" between the left and right. for instance if you have two guitars mixed in stereo they are going to sound similar, but different at the same time, this gets mixed into the surrounds. what comes out of the front left and right are sounds that are entirely left and right sounds, and unfortunatley the center channel comes through the left and right.

PLIIX is a whole different story, you can customize it so hard center information comes directly through the center and not the left and right, what comes through the left and the right is any sound pertaining directly to the left or right, but not both, what hits the surrounds is all the "wide" information. non-directional sounds, any echo or reverb, and similar differences between the left and right, in neo:6 the surrounds are almost like an add-on of the left and right, unhook all your speakers besides the left and right and you will see how the left and right changes dramatically, in neo:6, this does not happen. in neo:6 i noticed most of what was hitting the surrounds was nothing more then stereo guitars, in PLIIx i could hear symbal crashes, that were NOT mirroring the front as they had been removed from the front, all echo came out of them, for instance someone hits a snare drum, it comes through the front, the feedback echo portion of it comes out of the surrounds. i was actually very impressed with PLIIx and using it gave me an extremly convincing surround field that sounded very natural. neo:6 is not as good. neo:6 provides a "mirror" of the left and right with all the center information removed, PLIIx changes all channels.
if you go into your receivers PLII settings set the center width to 6 (whichever setting gives you a hard center) you will get alot better results this way imo.

 

[highfigh]

It's true there isn't a ton of music recorded in surround. Most of what there is uses gimicky mixes but not all. I've actually started using the surround modes in my receiver with two channel music. That may offend some purists but I think the modern processors do a great job of extracting ambiance from two channel material and producing a more enveloping experience. I've tried Dolby PL IIx and the DTS equivalent. Not sure if either is better than the other. I'm also into home theater so I have a 5.1 setup anyway. If there are engineers who can mix 5 channels of sound for movies, they ought to be able to do it for music in a way that sounds good. Surround music really is better even if it is only upconverted two channel but I hope I find more good stuff recorded that way.

Jim

If it's a stereo mix, there's no material encoded for any other format, so it's just basically adding channels and maybe adjusting the rear/center levels, based on testing, for a pleasing balance. It's not a bad approximation and I don't do things like that anymore, but if you like it, go for it. I added a pair of speakers in my teens and it was pretty nice, although I never intended it to be Quad because I always thought Quad mixes sounded like crap.

 

[yepimonfire]

PLIIx has a decoding mode specifically for music though. it doesent sound like adding extra speakers, it sounds completly different.