Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Plenum n Heather on July 30, 2014, 10:59:12 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZcz-V29_M
-
That was great that, thanks. Unfortunately convenience dictates everything, the masses get what they want, and what they generally want is the easy convenient option.
-
A while ago I did A/B tests on a good quality headphone rig with my eye closed, personally I can't tell the difference between a decent quality mp3 and a lossless audio format, I'm much more bothered about the quality of an audio unit and the speakers/headphones
-
A similarly strange phenomenon is happening with video. We all now have access to HD television (with 4k "Ultra HD" just around the corner) and surround-sound capability... and yet we're constantly told how bloody marvellous it's supposed to be to watch films and TV on poxy little tablets and smartphones. :rolleyes:
It seems we'd rather have gimmicks than real quality.
-
A similarly strange phenomenon is happening with video. We all now have access to HD television (with 4k "Ultra HD" just around the corner) and surround-sound capability... and yet we're constantly told how bloody marvellous it's supposed to be to watch films and TV on poxy little tablets and smartphones. :rolleyes:
It seems we'd rather have gimmicks than real quality.
The thing with 1080p mobile screens is you've got more pixel density than a bigger screen so you get a sharper picture but obviously the screen size itself is a compromise. With 4K it depends how big your screen is and how far you sit away from it, at 5 feet away you need a 60-70"+ screen to benefit from the extra clarity of 4K over 1080p. It'll be a while before humongous 4K screens are decent prices let alone content is provided for them outside of online film streaming services, right now the only real benefit of 4K is PC gaming.
-
Very interesting attempt to communicate the problem.
I would still buy physical except....
I'm $%&#ing sick of buying albums to find that 1 maybe 2 songs are any good..then it's just filler. I've been burned too many times after about 2004ish. :angry:
-
Going back to the sequence in the film where they followed the timeline from vinyl to 8-track to cassette etc, before getting to the nitty-gritty about the horrors of compressed audio.... I did find it a little odd that all the "talking heads" got all nostalgic about mix tapes and the Sony Walkman.
Cassette tape may not be a deliberately, brutally compressed audio format (I know very little about the science!) but it always sounded bloody awful. Even more so when listened to via the sh!tty headphones which came with personal stereos. In a film about decline of audio quality, looking at the cassette through rose-tinted spectacles seemed more than a bit contradictory.
-
Interesting little video. I don't really care about the vast majority of opinions in here and their MP3 bashing. It's funny that when they mentioned MP3 they also said "now its digital". I bet the majority of the tracks used in that video were recorded digitally, and if thats the case, you can still apply the "filling in the blanks" argument because its all sampled quantised and coded to an extent. That process still throws audio information away, just not as much as compression. The trick is being able to say where the human ear can notice a difference, and that's difficult because people often think they can hear things when they can't (put simply) but a bloke called Nyquist did a lot of work on it. Interesting that they say CD isn't compressed. Compressed in comparison to what? Real audio? hmmmm. Those little compressed / uncompressed bits are nonsense as well, its not a typical example of an available MP3 or other audio file format... also compression as a format is more about reducing file size and bandwidth than deliberately reducing dynamic range. The quick comparison to TV isn't a great one either, since TV is massively compressed and so is the audio that goes with it! There are teams of people that get paid to evaluate the effects of the compression on TV. Great point is made about how music has become disposable hidden in there. I have no idea why they interview some of those people.
For me, compression has advanced a lot over the years. There are other formats and "lossless" compression formats for example. I can understand if you're an artist with no control over the final sound that reaches someones ears that must be frustrating, but "compression" is a very wide term. I think in most cases if the MP3 or whatever file is compressed in a sensible way and you have good headphones (whether they are ear buds or not) then you're probably getting a pretty decent sound in comparison to tape etc. I like vinyl but I'm not nostalgic about it. It has other things I like besides the sound. I also listen to a lot of ratty sounding punk records where hifi output wasn't exactly job number one to begin with.
Basically this is just a rant about "audio compression", which is interesting if it marks a move away from "analog vs digital" but otherwise it's just another group winging about formats, only in this case the end result can vary WIDELY because the end result is almost in the hands of the consumer.
I love buying new vinyl, and I always appreciate getting a card with said records to download the record in a digital format produced by the artist, so I don't have to hunt out or make cr@ppy MP3's directly from the record.
Anyway. I'm biased. I'm a Coding & Mutiplexing Engineer so I compress stuff all day long and spend my days watching uncompressed 1080i HD in 1.4Gbps on a high grade broadcast monitor. Compression is what I do. It's my bread and butter. ha
-
For me, compression has advanced a lot over the years. There are other formats and "lossless" compression formats for example. I can understand if you're an artist with no control over the final sound that reaches someones ears that must be frustrating, but "compression" is a very wide term. I think in most cases if the MP3 or whatever file is compressed in a sensible way and you have good headphones (whether they are ear buds or not) then you're probably getting a pretty decent sound in comparison to tape etc.
I was thinking when some of the artists in the film (nice PR exercise for them, incidentally), like Mike Shinoda, were bemoaning the fact that they put loads of effort into making a recording sound good then people listen to it in sh!tty MP3 with sh!tty headphones..... well yes, but it's not as if you don't know that in advance.
I guess as an artist you either say "no compromises" or you actually try to optimise the sound for MP3 knowing that's what most listeners will end up hearing. Like when they used to optimise singles for radio.
-
Agreed.
At what point does it become shitety? I mean, I have a amp and standard speakers. Nothing special. Certainly not studio quality monitors. My turntable is a really cheap one with a cheap arm. I'd say forgetting MP3s, most people aren't audiophiles and don't own expensive setups to get all the quality these people are talking about. I listen to most music on the move, since I'm out the house at 6.30am and home late. I have so much to do its rare I can sit an enjoy a record with no distractions. I thought most people master songs with the end format in mind, so I have no issue buying vinyl and getting a download card for MP3's that are properly mixed and not too compressed. The content to be put on vinyl will most likely have been mastered differently before being pressed. There is nothing to stop artists listening to mixdowns of their songs as mp3's at various compression rates, or on car stereos, or small radios etc... then they could adjust.
However another broadcast point may be relevant. Everything in a broadcast chain is kept at the highest quality it can be up to the point just before it goes for transmission. By keeping to a high standard of production in the recording phase and using lossless codecs or uncompressed formats, you keep more quality at the after compression stage.
-
I like the idea of higher quality audio formats, but I generally only get a chance to listen to music after midnight so it's through headphones, sitting at the PC. My standalone CD player and turntable broke years ago and I haven't really felt the need to replace them.
As someone in the film - the Jerry Garcia lookalike bloke, I think - said, nobody specifically asked for MP3, it just sort of happened as a way of delivering music in relatively small file sizes. 99% of people neither know nor care that it's a lower quality format, they just want loads of songs on their phone. Not many would actively seek out an uncompressed (or less compressed) format, especially if they had to pay more for it.
I download very little, but a couple of times I've had the option of either mp3 or flac. I would've gone for flac, but I couldn't find any way of actually playing it without downloading software from some slightly dubious-looking site. It doesn't seem like iTunes or Amazon are terribly interested in offering better-quality formats, so presumably there's no money in it.
-
I can see the point they are making, but I think there are a lot of elements, mixed up little quotes and sound bites that make little sense and come across as pretentious without showing any understanding for the technology. They don't seem to offer an alternative or solution. It's just a few famous people willing to have a whinge about audio compression buy looking at it rather narrowly and glossing over the fact then any digital recording is inherently compressed in comparison to a true analog waveform.
Also, did anyone ask for 8 Track? Or cassette, floppy disc, mini disk or CD players?
-
I like the idea of higher quality audio formats, but I generally only get a chance to listen to music after midnight so it's through headphones, sitting at the PC. My standalone CD player and turntable broke years ago and I haven't really felt the need to replace them.
As someone in the film - the Jerry Garcia lookalike bloke, I think - said, nobody specifically asked for MP3, it just sort of happened as a way of delivering music in relatively small file sizes. 99% of people neither know nor care that it's a lower quality format, they just want loads of songs on their phone. Not many would actively seek out an uncompressed (or less compressed) format, especially if they had to pay more for it.
I download very little, but a couple of times I've had the option of either mp3 or flac. I would've gone for flac, but I couldn't find any way of actually playing it without downloading software from some slightly dubious-looking site. It doesn't seem like iTunes or Amazon are terribly interested in offering better-quality formats, so presumably there's no money in it.
You can get flac plugins for windows media player through the windows store.
Apple just want to make as much money as possible by spending as little as possible., If they switched to flac they would have to use up more storage space resulting in higher running costs which they wont be a fan of.
-
...and glossing over the fact then any digital recording is inherently compressed in comparison to a true analog waveform.
That's true up to a point. A digital signal is sampled so I guess you could argue that is compressed, but Claude Shannon and Harry Nyquist proved that a perfect reconstruction of the sampled signal back to the source is possible if you sample at twice the highest frequency you need to capture, plus a smidge. Hence CDs having a 44.1kHz sample rate. I know we can argue about bit depth here being a more limiting factor but even at 16-bit, the noise floor is below what you can actually hear.
I've always liked this article: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
For me the problem is much more in the mastering of recordings to compress and limit the audio for people listening in their cars than in it is in bit rates, sampling frequency or data compression.
-
Good article. Looks like its boiled down to a couple of things I already mentioned. Using decent headphones/speakers, decent levels or compression or different formats, and Philly mentioned being aware of mp3 as a final product and in my mind that means taking steps in the mastering phase for that.
Oh yeah, I know where the 44.1K comes from, but this just goes to show how the argument has moved from analog vs digital to being about what format of digital audio is best, but the video is in very simple terms. To say compression takes information and throws it away is an overly simplistic explanation and just sensationalises the issue, the same way those terribly compressed files and waveforms are used in that video. And compression of files for storage and streaming isn't the same as compression of dynamic range, which they also seem to confuse.
Another thing they don't touch on is who is the audience and what are their buying habits. It's like they're assuming everyone who listens to compressed audio doesn't care about what it sounds like. Like the composer guy... how many of his fans would really go and buy poorly encoded mp3's of his stuff? Really? Are there no pros to weigh up against the cons? I think there are bigger drawbacks to mp3 than just audio quality.
-
I think there are bigger drawbacks to mp3 than just audio quality.
This. My thoughts exactly.
mp3 was a necessary evil when 'bandwidth' was an issue, but now even THAT notion is becoming out of date in most of the world, certainly in the countries with enough disposable cash to purchase music for casual listening.
There really is no excuse to NOT have have the consumer have a choice between mp3 and AIFF or WAV now; but it's akin to fighting City Hall at this point.
After Sony's mainstream failure with MiniDisc, they concluded that a consumer will only support 2 major purchase formats of music in their lifetime -- LP > CD, CD > mp3 ... to ask someone who owned the CD, then the Apple "Lossless" to also purchase the album as FLAC, AIFF, or WAV? Probably not going to happen.
So I think we are still a ways away from consumer MENTALITY to embrace the notion of higher quality audio formats.
Re: Redbook WAV/CD vs higher formats ... 16 bit/44.1 is good. 24 bit is noticeably better. I haven't heard any real improvement with upsampling; and some VERY slight sonic improvements with oversampling. But not enough to risk all the clocking and pitch issues that come along with 48k and above.
Lively discussion folks! Keep it up! :)
-
video compression is even worse. ha.
Like I said, I quite like buying an LP that also comes with a download code for some digital format. I think that's a really good way of doing it. Doesn't seem a point in doing that with CD since you can rip it yourself and use whatever to do it. But then I'm the kind of guy that would go for that. Or I'd buy tracks direct from bands on bandcamp maybe. I get MP3's for the convenience of them being portable. I rarely buy from itunes and thats the only place I've bought an mp3 from. So 'the consumer' here means the mojority of people, who i assume buy singles and aren't really concerned with things like ablums, album art, thanks lists or lyric books for example. I doubt they really care about bit depth either. They just want to hear Kate Nash's latest catchy number, and ironically, if you want to be a big pop artist, those are the people you need to appeal to. So it's a Catch 22 I think.
-
Interesting discussion. Haven't got time to watch the vid - but I get the drift from you guys' comments.
I was anti-CD until I bought a CD player. Can't remember when it was exactly, but Queen's Innuendo had been out for a year or so. The first CDs I bought were Innuendo, Free's Highway, Thin Lizzy's Jailbreak, and Judas Priest's Stained Class. I'd been all "but vinyl sounds so much more natural..." before that. I got the buggers home, plugged the CD player into the same set-up the turn-table was attached to and... I was BLOWN AWAY!!
I miss the sleeves, the 12" of black plastic, all the ritual, etc... but to me, the CD version of Jailbreak and Highway sounded so much more preferable than the records. I was converted in minutes...
Mp3s, I dunno... For years, everything I ripped from CD for my portable thingie was 64K wma!! Yeah, I could hear some of the degradation, but the music was still there. And, funnily enough, plug the portable thingie into the stereo - and the degradation was a LOT less noticable than on ear-buds...
I do mp3 nowadays, but it takes more space (my portable thingie is still a 1Gb usb stick player).
Something else I've observed with both commercial recordings and my own sh1t - some stuff survives whatever audio-format/speakers/rooms/ears you throw at it... the spirit, vibe, and performance is there no matter what... It'd probably sound OK if you transmitted between two baked bean cans with a piece of string...
But some stuff doesn't - it needs good speakers and a good room and a high quality format to prop it up. I can imagine the performers/authors sitting there listening with me and going "omigod! It's not meant to sound like that!! your system's sh1t - you need to get decent stuff if you want to listen to my music". I find myself thinking "well, how come other artistes/producers have managed to create a product that sounds cool no matter what I do to it?"
If they want to create music just for their own amusement, yeah, fine... But if they want a whole bunch of people to be impressed enough to buy it and give them an income, then they really ought to be thinking about what's going to happen to it when it leaves the big speakers in the control room. Yeah, mixes can be optimised for different deliveries, but the impression that I have at the moment is that GOOD mixes sound OK/good on cheap stuff (including mono) and they still sound good on the expensive stuff...
And what they ALL seem to be missing is the one thing that no-one has any control over whatsoever - ears, and how the brain interprets whatever signals those ears can pick up.
With my stuff, someone, on a low quality mp3 and shite speakers/room, can go "hey that's fab!"... and I go "but it's a bit disappointing... it should have more [wotever]". I drag them up to my room and play the original through the big speakers... they go "hey! nice system... song's still fab, though"... and I go "can't you hear the more [wotever] on the song?"... and they go "no not really, it's just a better stereo... song still sounds fab" (Sometimes the word fab can be substituted with the word cr@p - the experience is the same!!)
I dunno, after my experience of vinyl to CD conversion years ago, and subsequent experiences with recording, etc... musicians/producers complaining about audio quality seems a bit like the farmer who produces the eggs complaining about the fat I fry them in...
One thing, though, I know it's only a typo Dmoney :smiley:, but I reckon that "mojority" really should be a word! :grin:
eg: "the spirit, vibe, mojority and performance is there no matter what..."
-
I don't really have much to add to this debate, I don't really understand ten ought about the science behind it. I have recently been given (yes, given - free of charge) a c--ktail audio music player. The first decision I had to make was what format did I want to store the music in - i did some very light research and plumped for FLAC. Through the speakers and at a decent volume it sounds pretty damn good. Maybe I should A/B against an MP3.
Also, earlier today I was in HMV looking for some bargains and noticed they had some demo headphones out on display. I gave some Beats a go (not sure if they are rated highly or if they are just a 'name'). To my ears they sounded absolutely stunning. A few sample tracks (Sheryl Crow, Rolling Stones) were listened to and the clarity of all instruments and vocals was pretty impressive. Not sure what audio equipment they had handling the playback though.
I decided not to purchase them - £350 for some headphones is a bit steep for me at the moment. They definitely got my attention though.
-
Going back to the sequence in the film where they followed the timeline from vinyl to 8-track to cassette etc, before getting to the nitty-gritty about the horrors of compressed audio.... I did find it a little odd that all the "talking heads" got all nostalgic about mix tapes and the Sony Walkman.
Cassette tape may not be a deliberately, brutally compressed audio format (I know very little about the science!) but it always sounded bloody awful. Even more so when listened to via the sh!tty headphones which came with personal stereos. In a film about decline of audio quality, looking at the cassette through rose-tinted spectacles seemed more than a bit contradictory.
The things recording tapes did was teach the recorder about levels and clipping. They don't have that now... With a good HiFi and tape deck, you could make very good recordings. Not many people did, but it was possible. I miss records though... I miss the way they sounded, I miss the interaction and I miss the big gatefold sleeves.
But still do my best to buy everything on CD. I will admit that to get around Afghan's problem of albums being one awesome track and a load of filler, I tend to download, then if I like it, legitimise it with a CD.
It is all about convenience now. I'll admit that I do most of my listening now whilst at the computer, or while building pedals. Both on MP3s. Every now and then I'll stick a CD in my HiFi and I'm blown away by the difference (and it's not like I've got shite speakers on my computer). It's a shame that I don't make time for listening to music as much as I used to when I was younger.
-
I think a reason why a lot of people had a distaste for cassettes was more the fact that a lot were recorded using long play techniques which was half the quality.
Singles on cassette always sounded far better than albums imho.
-
Interesting documentary, very bias and I disagree with a bunch of it, but at least it sparks debate.
The tape part of the documentary was kind of against the grain of the rest of the message, which was pushing audio quality. Those old cassette tapes stretch, compress dynamic range and lose high frequency information.. Also, it's not exactly as if ghetto blasters had fine audio quality.
Personally speaking, except maybe for my first and maybe second release, the benefits of MP3 have given much to me as an artist, and I have to say I probably wouldn't have done many of the things I've done without it.
When I was younger I did sit down in an easy chair and listen to an album and appreciate the nuances. Today I am always doing something else when listening to music. And background noise hides a lot of the details of even the highest fidelity recording.
-
I was anti-CD until I bought a CD player. Can't remember when it was exactly, but Queen's Innuendo had been out for a year or so. The first CDs I bought were Innuendo, Free's Highway, Thin Lizzy's Jailbreak, and Judas Priest's Stained Class. I'd been all "but vinyl sounds so much more natural..." before that. I got the buggers home, plugged the CD player into the same set-up the turn-table was attached to and... I was BLOWN AWAY!!
Agree!! I was blown away when I first listened to a CD too. It was a big step forward.
-
When I listen to the uncompressed WAV I've just lovingly rendered from my DAW and then compare it to the MP3 I produced from it, the difference is clear though. Even at 320kps (though this bit rate is pretty good quality I think) you can hear it even in lower quality gear.
I do think the benefits outweigh this though.
-
Personally speaking, except maybe for my first and maybe second release, the benefits of MP3 have given much to me as an artist, and I have to say I probably wouldn't have done many of the things I've done without it.
When I was younger I did sit down in an easy chair and listen to an album and appreciate the nuances. Today I am always doing something else when listening to music. And background noise hides a lot of the details of even the highest fidelity recording.
MP3 and digital distribution defo helped me out with my band, and I imagine countless others too! I do find myself getting tired of music more quickly and moving on faster, given its so easy for me to find something new. At least I feel I consume faster. Anyone else feel like that? I'm also usually doing something while listening.
-
MP3 and digital distribution defo helped me out with my band, and I imagine countless others too! I do find myself getting tired of music more quickly and moving on faster, given its so easy for me to find something new. At least I feel I consume faster. Anyone else feel like that? I'm also usually doing something while listening.
It certainly has affected my listening habits and in a big way. In fact, rather than investigating new music as I used to do, I find myself going back in time and following up recommendations found by research. There is a lot of new stuff, and sadly it's not always very good, as Afghan pointed out.. So (much to my own shame) I have ignored much of it..
-
I am a fairly simple soul and I rather like the idea of being able to access my entire CD collection on my Ipod (even though Itunes has degenerated into a useless pile of cr*p)and the compromise on recording quality , which frankly I've never been too bothered about, is a price I've been prepered to pay. I can add much to the bate as some of you guys know far amore about the technicalities that I do. What I do know, however, is that my Ipod sounds far better than my old cassette walkman and better than the "hi fi" I had in the 1980's . I tend to buy CD's and copy them for the Ipod and listen to the CD in the car or on my home system when Mrs 38th is out.
-
I do find myself getting tired of music more quickly and moving on faster, given its so easy for me to find something new. At least I feel I consume faster. Anyone else feel like that? I'm also usually doing something while listening.
I've had a bit of a reverse on this recently. I was a pretty early adopter of iPods and ripping my music to have in a massive library instantly available. The lure of shuffle and easily made playlists certainly heavily shaped the way I've listened to music for the last 15 years or so.
I've recently (last four months or so) got a properly decent portable DAC and headphone amp combo to go with my iPod and good headphones. I got this kit because I travel for work a lot, it gets very stressful, and I wanted to be able to listen to music at the end of the working day in high fidelity so I really get the most out of it. The thing I've found is that by listening, in hi-fi, on headphones I'm less disturbable than I am when listening over speakers, and I'm actually listening to albums from beginning to end again. Not only that I'm consciously seeking out new music and then giving it a proper listen, rather than half listening while mucking about on the internet or what-have-you as I was before.
I'm sure this wouldn't be everyone's experience but I found it really interesting that having really good portable hi-fi made brought this change on me.
-
I don't really have much to add to this debate, I don't really understand ten ought about the science behind it. I have recently been given (yes, given - free of charge) a c--ktail audio music player. The first decision I had to make was what format did I want to store the music in - i did some very light research and plumped for FLAC. Through the speakers and at a decent volume it sounds pretty damn good. Maybe I should A/B against an MP3.
Also, earlier today I was in HMV looking for some bargains and noticed they had some demo headphones out on display. I gave some Beats a go (not sure if they are rated highly or if they are just a 'name'). To my ears they sounded absolutely stunning. A few sample tracks (Sheryl Crow, Rolling Stones) were listened to and the clarity of all instruments and vocals was pretty impressive. Not sure what audio equipment they had handling the playback though.
I decided not to purchase them - £350 for some headphones is a bit steep for me at the moment. They definitely got my attention though.
I have listened to beats in that price range so I'm guessing they were the same pair, for me the clarity was just as good as my Sennheiser HD650s but the beats were a lot more coloured which I hated. Much prefer my HD650s and they also cost less but you need to run them with a headphone amp to get the most out of them.
-
I get the point you are trying to get across, but in the big picture I don't agree at all.
If you bought a stereo kit in the 80s for £500 it would sounds pretty bad. Today that money gives you some good gear.
Even the earbuds bundled with telephones sound pretty good. When were the last time you guys listened to a set of speakers from the 70s? I think that era get way to hyped today, got to put it into perspective. Play the good old music through modern equipment and it soudns great. Play it through an old stereo from the era and it sounds quite bad. I'd rather listen to a 160kbps mp3 in a modern stereo that a Vinyl through an old one.
Still though, a FLAC through a modern setup is great!
-
I get the point you are trying to get across, but in the big picture I don't agree at all.
If you bought a stereo kit in the 80s for £500 it would sounds pretty bad. Today that money gives you some good gear.
Even the earbuds bundled with telephones sound pretty good. When were the last time you guys listened to a set of speakers from the 70s? I think that era get way to hyped today, got to put it into perspective. Play the good old music through modern equipment and it soudns great. Play it through an old stereo from the era and it sounds quite bad. I'd rather listen to a 160kbps mp3 in a modern stereo that a Vinyl through an old one.
Still though, a FLAC through a modern setup is great!
I think, as with all things, it depends on a case by case basis. I used to have some 70s Sonab omnidirectional speakers which were quite decent (and certainly very cool) but not up to modern hi-fi standards. That said, my dad still has Meridian 100 series amp equipment and Celef PE1 speakers, both from the late 70s, that still sound absolutely amazing. At the lower end of the market I agree that modern gear is generally superior to 70s kit, but once you cross into heavier duty hi-fi the distinction between the eras diminishes a lot.
-
My "hi fi" system still includes a NAD 3020A amplifier and KEF Coda III speakers which I bought around 1982.
They don't actually get used any more, though, and I have no idea how they compare with modern kit as I've nothing to reference them against.
-
.... but once you cross into heavier duty hi-fi the distinction between the eras diminishes a lot.
Yeah, I was generalizing a little bit. I think during the 70s speaker and amp technology matured into the modern things we have today. Mass production and QC etc etc.
-
My "hi fi" system still includes a NAD 3020A amplifier and KEF Coda III speakers which I bought around 1982.
They don't actually get used any more, though, and I have no idea how they compare with modern kit as I've nothing to reference them against.
They compare just fine. That's a very musical system.
I have a stupid amount of hifi, and have owned many more pieces due to being 'in the biz' -- B&K, Krell, Linn, Cary, Rotel, Arcam, Focal, Wilson Audio, Sonus Faber, Audio Research ... the list goes on and on. I get to play w obscenely expense hifi on a daily basis, as well as crazy hi end pro audio gear.
-
My "hi fi" system still includes a NAD 3020A amplifier and KEF Coda III speakers which I bought around 1982.
They don't actually get used any more, though, and I have no idea how they compare with modern kit as I've nothing to reference them against.
They compare just fine. That's a very musical system.
Maybe you ought to get 'em out from under the bed then Philly? :wink:
-
No bed for these, they're actually sitting in a proper hi-fi rack.
With a lot of dust on it.
-
No bed for these, they're actually sitting in a proper hi-fi rack.
With a lot of dust on it.
You're like a musical Miss Havisham. :smiley:
-
I guess so. I'll take the "musical" bit as a compliment.
-
You're like a musical Miss Havisham. :smiley:
Ha! Ha! One of the great BKP forum lines... possibly of all time... this had me in hysterics (sorry Philly! :smiley:)
-
:grin: I wonder if that's lost on our younger readers (if there are any left...) :undecided:
-
:grin: I wonder if that's lost on our younger readers (if there are any left...) :undecided:
Dickens is MASSIVE with the teenage set you know. ;)
A tip of the hat to Afghan Dave though: a beautiful moment.
-
It doesn't matter how much expensive pro audio gear you buy if the room acoustics are terrible ;)
Pretty much why I stick to headphones
-
A lot of people here probably think 'Great Expectations' is just one of KISS's lamest songs of the '70s.
-
A lot of people here probably think 'Great Expectations' is just one of KISS's lamest songs of the '70s.
I'm more scared of the number who would say, "Who are KISS?"
-
:embarrassed: Thank you.. you're too kind. :embarrassed: :smiley: