Don't forget, when doing car audio run your power cables on one side of the car and your sound wires on the other side. I have seen many people put an amp in their trunk and wire the power and sound together. then they wonder why it all sounds like shit.
Don't forget, when doing car audio run your power cables on one side of the car and your sound wires on the other side. I have seen many people put an amp in their trunk and wire the power and sound together. then they wonder why it all sounds like shit.
Indeed. This is also important when setting up a home stereo. Try to keep signal cables short and away from power cords, and try to avoid the cables forming loops.
Difference is not synonymous with better. If there is a difference, it's a matter of taste, like the difference between vinyl and CD.
Ah, no. The difference between vinyl and CD is clear. CDs are scientifically superior. If your taste tells you that you like the sound of vinyl better, then you simply like what is technically shittier audio.
Difference is not synonymous with better. If there is a difference, it's a matter of taste, like the difference between vinyl and CD.
Ah, no. The difference between vinyl and CD is clear. CDs are scientifically superior. If your taste tells you that you like the sound of vinyl better, then you simply like what is technically shittier audio.
Care to take a double blind on that? I can't say it enough for but some reason most CDs are not mixed with enough dynamic frequency to create an authentic listening experience (authentic to a live performance). They're mixed for headphones and Wal-Mart stereos. I have some examples of modern records and CDs with the same music and would be happy to double blind you.
This isn't to say that CDs aren't technically superior in their specs, because they are. Interestingly, the poorly mixed CD seems to be somewhat of an American phenomena (go figure). I find that (as a general rule) if you can find a European (or even Canadian) Cd it'll focus more on dynamic frequency than volume. The few Japanese CDs I've had tend towards the American method I think.
I think that they should classify music quality like they do the 'ratings' on movies. I can always pay more for something I think is worthwhile and encode it for my mp3 player. My $0.02.
At least one person in this thread clearly does not know what "double blind" means.It means that a test is set up in such a way that the observer knows as little as possible about the test so that his own bias does not show when he is observing a subject taking the test.
Care to take a double blind on that? I can't say it enough for but some reason most CDs are not mixed with enough dynamic frequency to create an authentic listening experience (authentic to a live performance). They're mixed for headphones and Wal-Mart stereos. I have some examples of modern records and CDs with the same music and would be happy to double blind you.
You are confusing the issues of dynamic range and frequency range.
A blank canvas is a blank canvas. If you cover that canvas with oils and use talent you can get a Mona Lisa. Cover it with shit and you get shit on a canvas.
Take those same materials and paint on a canvas with jagged edges, bumps and lumps and that same Mona Lisa will not look as good. The shit will still stink no matter what you apply it to.
Dynamic range is an issue of those doing the recording and mixing it has nothing to do with the CD.
PS: Have you ever listend to (the band) Boston on a CD? They have all of the dynamic range AND it still sounds better than vinyl.
Care to take a double blind on that? I can't say it enough for but some reason most CDs are not mixed with enough dynamic frequency to create an authentic listening experience (authentic to a live performance). They're mixed for headphones and Wal-Mart stereos. I have some examples of modern records and CDs with the same music and would be happy to double blind you.
You are confusing the issues of dynamic range and frequency range.
A blank canvas is a blank canvas. If you cover that canvas with oils and use talent you can get a Mona Lisa. Cover it with shit and you get shit on a canvas.
Take those same materials and paint on a canvas with jagged edges, bumps and lumps and that same Mona Lisa will not look as good. The shit will still stink no matter what you apply it to.
Dynamic range is an issue of those doing the recording and mixing it has nothing to do with the CD.
PS: Have you ever listend to (the band) Boston on a CD? They have all of the dynamic range AND it still sounds better than vinyl.
Yes, Steve is right. Just because people decide to put poorly mixed music on CDs and nicely mixed music on vinyls does not make CDs worse. A CD is like fancy laser printer paper, and a vinyl is like a napkin. Just because people are putting masterpieces on napkins and wiping their butts with fancy paper, doesn't mean the fancy paper isn't better in every way. Put the same exact music on CD and vinyl, and vinyl will always lose.
The only thing I agree with audiophiles is that tubes do make a difference in sound. Then again I'm a guitar player who uses a tube amp. XDAre you willing to take a double blind on that? I'll bet you can't tell the difference between tubes and transistors.On a guitar it's a whole different play field, I have actually taken a double blind test because the drummer in my band thought the same thing.
Yes, Steve is right. Just because people decide to put poorly mixed music on CDs and nicely mixed music on vinyls does not make CDs worse. A CD is like fancy laser printer paper, and a vinyl is like a napkin. Just because people are putting masterpieces on napkins and wiping their butts with fancy paper, doesn't mean the fancy paper isn't better in every way.
It matters if you're the one that's going to have to listen to shit on that fancy paper.
Yes, Steve is right. Just because people decide to put poorly mixed music on CDs and nicely mixed music on vinyls does not make CDs worse. A CD is like fancy laser printer paper, and a vinyl is like a napkin. Just because people are putting masterpieces on napkins and wiping their butts with fancy paper, doesn't mean the fancy paper isn't better in every way.
It matters if you're the one that's going to have to listen to shit on that fancy paper.
Can someone translate those quotes for me?
...demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband... Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way... And do not try one of these devices unless you’re prepared to buy it.
...demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband... Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way... And do not try one of these devices unless you’re prepared to buy it.
...demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband... Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way... And do not try one of these devices unless you’re prepared to buy it.
On that note, I doubt this guy is going to say "Well it turns out its merely psychological" when they rumble him as he has his entire livelyhood [word?] resting on this.
Demagnetize a pit? A HOLE! An LP is a series of holes, a ditch, no magnetic shit whatsoever. WaterIsPoison's filter needs a slight tweak, but it finds 99.9% of the message.
Comments
This isn't to say that CDs aren't technically superior in their specs, because they are. Interestingly, the poorly mixed CD seems to be somewhat of an American phenomena (go figure). I find that (as a general rule) if you can find a European (or even Canadian) Cd it'll focus more on dynamic frequency than volume. The few Japanese CDs I've had tend towards the American method I think.
I think that they should classify music quality like they do the 'ratings' on movies. I can always pay more for something I think is worthwhile and encode it for my mp3 player. My $0.02.
What's more, you would have to be functionally deaf not to be able to tell the difference between a CD and a record in a blind test.
What's more, if you think records sound better from a technical standpoint: you're wrong. You probably just like pops and hisses.
And clearly someone on this thread doesn't know that.
A blank canvas is a blank canvas. If you cover that canvas with oils and use talent you can get a Mona Lisa. Cover it with shit and you get shit on a canvas.
Take those same materials and paint on a canvas with jagged edges, bumps and lumps and that same Mona Lisa will not look as good. The shit will still stink no matter what you apply it to.
Dynamic range is an issue of those doing the recording and mixing it has nothing to do with the CD.
PS: Have you ever listend to (the band) Boston on a CD? They have all of the dynamic range AND it still sounds better than vinyl.
I'm very much looking forward to this.
...demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband... Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way... And do not try one of these devices unless you’re prepared to buy it.
I'd like to meet a guy named "Bullshit McGee."
http://www.kls2.com/~karl/random/KnowJackSchitt.swf
(don't know why but when I run flash in Firefox everything goes buggy.)