Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 22:23:09 GMT
Good evening everyone!
I hope you're all well and listening to something great.
My first question:
What is your go to first play on a new system? Something special that you test your new setup with or just an old favorite?
Mine has to be Everywhere by the great Fleetwood Mac.
Yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 20, 2021 2:37:23 GMT
Mary Chapin Carpenter - Come On Come On from the album of the same name and Acoustic Alchemy - Playing for Time from the album Back on the Case
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 20, 2021 8:22:26 GMT
Dire Straits Brothers In Arms - only because it was the first record I played on my first ever separates system.
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Oct 20, 2021 8:51:25 GMT
Nothing to do with the quality then???
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Oct 20, 2021 9:10:22 GMT
Nothing to do with the quality then???  |
|
|
|
Post by robbiegong on Oct 20, 2021 9:12:37 GMT
If it's on a new system where I'm not familiar with how said system presents then surely anything I like and everything, towards assessing and evaluating what I've got / what I'm getting
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 20, 2021 11:05:18 GMT
Nothing to do with the quality then??? lol no, it isn't my favourite LP, not even my favourite Dire Straits record, it's just a silly tradition I have. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 21, 2021 2:56:16 GMT
Nothing to do with the quality then??? That's below the belt Alan  and it's no good you laughing as well MisterC |
|
|
|
Post by lurch on Oct 23, 2021 7:11:05 GMT
For me it's Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Sessions, (180g, 2 LP VERSION or CD). If the new component can enhance my enjoyment of this recording or reveal new details/understanding, then it's a keeper or an 'I want', depending on my finances at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 23, 2021 9:03:03 GMT
if we're talking 'test records' I tend to avoid anything 'audiophile' or with a showcase production.
if a record like that doesn't sound right then you've gone badly wrong. Been there and done that.
I usually pick stuff that is badly recorded, or maybe 'crudely' recorded is a better word. And never something that is sparse and acoustic, so no jazz, folk, girl with guitar and so on. I like to use a bad recording with a busy mix but one that is also good music.
Thin Lizzy 'Live And Dangerous' which is a terrible hotch-potch of overdubs and mediocre live recording. Or 'The Best Of Sam And Dave' which was recorded back in the early 1960s with equipment they found in a skip.
If the system can maintain the message of the music in those recordings then it passes.
|
|
optical
Moderator
BIG STAR
Be Excellent To Eachother
Posts: 1,563 
Member is Online
|
Post by optical on Oct 23, 2021 16:06:49 GMT
if we're talking 'test records' I tend to avoid anything 'audiophile' or with a showcase production. if a record like that doesn't sound right then you've gone badly wrong. Been there and done that. I usually pick stuff that is badly recorded, or maybe 'crudely' recorded is a better word. And never something that is sparse and acoustic, so no jazz, folk, girl with guitar and so on. I like to use a bad recording with a busy mix but one that is also good music. Thin Lizzy 'Live And Dangerous' which is a terrible hotch-potch of overdubs and mediocre live recording. Or 'The Best Of Sam And Dave' which was recorded back in the early 1960s with equipment they found in a skip. If the system can maintain the message of the music in those recordings then it passes. That approach is spot on. If your system can deal with 'busy' passages of rock music (and classical I have found) it goes without saying it will sound absolutely sublime with better recorded or easier to reproduce music (eg: all that jazz, acoustic etc example Macca gave). I've been guilty of this in the past. If you only test your system with the better recordings it can be quite a shock when you happen across anything lesser quality. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Oct 24, 2021 3:57:22 GMT
For me, it's the first 2 tracks on this album. Solo lute recorded in a church acoustic. It seems to have endless layers of resolution, the better my gear gets the deeper into the recording I can hear in a way that isn't so obvious on any other recording. The image focus, church ambience (not overdone), the resolution of fast runs, the delicacy of the harmonics, the tonal believability of the instrument. It shows up everything I'm really interested in hearing. Other recordings get used for dynamic heft, scale and bass wonga etc, but that's secondary stuff as far as I am concerned. I totally don't get using naff recordings, that seems pointless to me. How do you know what they should sound like? And anyway, if a recording is poor its very unlikely I'll go back to it, or even carry on listening. But that's a difference about classical music - there's almost always alternative recordings of the music. There are hundreds of recordings of Beethoven symphonies for example. So why listen to a poorly recorded one when there are decent alternatives?  |
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Oct 24, 2021 5:43:58 GMT
I totally don't get using naff recordings, that seems pointless to me. How do you know what they should sound like? And anyway, if a recording is poor its very unlikely I'll go back to it, or even carry on listening. But that's a difference about classical music - there's almost always alternative recordings of the music. There are hundreds of recordings of Beethoven symphonies for example. So why listen to a poorly recorded one when there are decent alternatives? i thought that when i read it. i like to use this for testing,mainly my turntables ,it has some fast blue grass type recordings with lots going on.i find when i get that sounding right every thing else is ok too.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 24, 2021 7:59:24 GMT
For me, it's the first 2 tracks on this album. Solo lute recorded in a church acoustic. It seems to have endless layers of resolution, the better my gear gets the deeper into the recording I can hear in a way that isn't so obvious on any other recording. The image focus, church ambience (not overdone), the resolution of fast runs, the delicacy of the harmonics, the tonal believability of the instrument. It shows up everything I'm really interested in hearing. Other recordings get used for dynamic heft, scale and bass wonga etc, but that's secondary stuff as far as I am concerned. I totally don't get using naff recordings, that seems pointless to me. How do you know what they should sound like? And anyway, if a recording is poor its very unlikely I'll go back to it, or even carry on listening. But that's a difference about classical music - there's almost always alternative recordings of the music. There are hundreds of recordings of Beethoven symphonies for example. So why listen to a poorly recorded one when there are decent alternatives? It's nothing to do with knowing what it should sound like, it's whether it's enjoyable to listen to or not. That's the test. It should be. if it isn't then it's a fail. If 'difficult' recordings sound good then well recorded simple stuff will blow you away. It's about testing the worse case scenario. There's no benefit in testing the best case scenario. Simple recordings flatter any system. If I really wanted to test if reverb was lingering on for longer or something like that then I suppose I would use something simple and acoustic. But if the system cannot do justice to the difficult stuff I don't see the point in going any further into it. Plus I personally don't get hung up on the minute audiophilia stuff like that. Most of it (not all of it I grant you) is in the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by rexton on Oct 24, 2021 8:05:35 GMT
What aspect of the system are you trying to assess? I have many recordings over several genres which allow me to assess a system.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 24, 2021 8:12:22 GMT
for me- whether it's any good or not.
Have you ever had a set up where the first ten albums you listened to sound great then you get to album number 11 and realise that something is badly wrong but that none of the other recordings showed it up?
That's why I use the 'Live & Dangerous' test, short circuits that process.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Oct 24, 2021 9:21:19 GMT
Hehe, macca. Wottaloadabollox. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Oct 24, 2021 9:44:15 GMT
I can appreciate that it's not a method that would work for the Classical listener but I can assure you that it isn't bollox.
Why do you think they like to play simple music at shows? So the punters can hear the delicate reverb tails? Or so it doesn't show up the obvious flaws in the crappy and pointlessly expensive equipment they have on demo? Some demonstrators even refuse to play anything challenging when requested. Surely that's a clue?
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Oct 28, 2021 11:30:00 GMT
I have two albums currently that are difficult for more 'tailored' systems to play properly, but a balanced stereo can hopefully manage to an acceptable standard. One is 'Disappear Here' by Hybrid, which is a dark, brooding bassy production that my Harbeth Thunderboxes cannot reproduce properly for love nor money as all the upper mids are totally swamped by the bass and lower mids. The other is tonally the exact opposite, 'Phantoms' by The Fixx, a thin toned and very 'lively' production with plenty of sibilance which the Harbeths delight in but which can sound 'thin and fierce' on other speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 28, 2021 16:04:23 GMT
I can't remember you ever owning up to Harbeth's on HFS Dave  |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Oct 28, 2021 16:41:38 GMT
I have a pair of inherited Spendor BC2's which I have eternal sentimental attachment to and are currently too tatty in the grille department to use indoors. I came by these SHL5's via a different route a few years back (nothing underhand I swear) and they sat in their boxes for along time. Herself prefers the look of them, or should I say she dislikes them the least and politically, I couldn't sell them for a few years as a good friendship is involved. They sound great if set in free space in a larger less damped by soft furnishings room but here, too close to the back wall and with a port-loaded bass, the lower mids and bass just 'thunders' out. A measured (by Stereophile once) dip in the region where all your ears are most sensitive and where mine have bombed out, makes then sound duller to me than you would probably hear them. I brought the old IMF mk1 Compacts down to try and these have no bass power at all (unlike their Super Compact replacements), although the midrange is clear to a fault. The XD Harbeths have corrected or at least improved the areas I find awry but they're so expensive now (they've moved upmarket and no loss of sales apparently, so a good marketing decision for them), any interest is academic - same for my beloved ATC brand... When we know what the bloody hell we're doing as regards moving, the Harbeths will be put on notice and almost certainly moved on, the BC2's will hopefully get the grilles refurbished with a black modern cloth and I'll probably finish up with these as they don't boom or honk like BC1's do and they can tolerate close to back wall siting better, especially as the trolley stands I sold them with have been located and await my collection (a very long way way though).
|
|
