@Elk…“What’chu talkin’ 'bout, Timequest?”
Duke of Earl saidtimequest said Is it just me, or does Duke's avatar look like Gary Coleman in a top hatIt’s Gene Chandler, of course. LOL
Another Duke…My bad!
DUKE
Well this is a good point you raised. While beta testing PWD/DS [it seems like forever] I always had a 20 track set of “well recorded” music in various resolutions and formats. I played them to death as references while testing but now hardly ever wish to play them as… well I guess I’m just burned out with them for a while. I have a large music collection and perhaps, in my case, I just want them all to be playable and listenable based on my music mood rather than inspector mode.
It is, of course, a wonderful experience to chance upon a well recorded and moving performance. They just are not all deserving of that descriptive.
G
[unnecessary, large quote deleted]
gordon,
I also get burned out playing various versions of reference recordings to test new FW. And, like you, I keep a large selection on hand so that I can come to them with a fresh ear and a fresh mind. I find it incredibly satisfying to pull out some really “well recorded” music and hear the improvement with Yale. Yale was the breakthrough I was hoping for. It is doing things with my reference CD collection that never happened with earlier FW iterations. In my system my reference recordings sound as good as they sounded with the Berkeley Reference DAC – from music memory in a different system (no need to get excited about the obvious problems here since this is subjective). It is the palpability factor that is the deciding factor for me with new FW. 1.2.1 and Pike did not have palpability in my system. But Yale has it. Since this is a matter of increments and degrees I am hoping there will be a lot more of this coming with the next FW upgrades.
If you are into guitar, another recording I use for testing Yale is You’ve Got a friend – The Best of James Taylor (Warner). I also use Gordon Lightfoot – The United Artists Collection (United Artists). The guitar work on both of these recordings is superb.
If you know these recordings well and how they should sound, they will serve you very well.
However, if demand exemplary sound quality recordings for the purpose of evaluating Yale they are poor choices. Each was recorded expressly to obtain a particular coloration, a desired sound-type with choice of mics, mic pres, placement, etc. This is not perforce bad, but ultimate sound quality was far from the producers’ minds. Thus, if you believe lesser quality material will not show the improvements realized by Yale, I recommend looking elsewhere.
If you find utilization of the best sounding recordings a necessary prerequisite for evaluation, I suggest carefully researching the catalog of modern classical recordings. The are made with a superior recording chain and strive for a natural guitar sound, with a good balance of body to neck resonance, etc.
Elk saidAre we headed back to the context of my earlier remarks by harkening back to those remarks in your post? I thought that was finished business. Apparently not.If you know these recordings well and how they should sound, they will serve you very well.
However, if demand exemplary sound quality recordings for the purpose of evaluating Yale they are poor choices. Each was recorded expressly to obtain a particular coloration, a desired sound-type with choice of mics, mic pres, placement, etc. This is not perforce bad, but ultimate sound quality was far from the producers’ minds. Thus, if you believe lesser quality material will not show the improvements realized by Yale, I recommend looking elsewhere.
If you find utilization of the best sounding recordings a necessary prerequisite for evaluation, I suggest carefully researching the catalog of modern classical recordings. The are made with a superior recording chain and strive for a natural guitar sound, with a good balance of body to neck resonance, etc.
For me, finding the best recorded material for FW evaluation is like avatars. Most people find the best one for them – which hopefully includes having a bit of fun with it – then it’s done. Some people take things more seriously and keep searching for perfection – preferring to be without one – till the day arrives when the perfect one appears. Different strokes. No harm done either way.
These James Taylor and Gordon Lightfoot recordings that I referred to are beautiful and are beautifully recorded. I know them very well. How they “should” sound? For me, music is not so much an intellectual pursuit as an emotional pursuit. I am not searching in my mind for a “perfect” guitar sound or a “perfect” recording – how something “should” sound. I am not concerned about the mind of the producer – as though that were fathomable without their explaining what was on their mind. And even if it were that would not lessen my appreciation of these recordings. These versions may or may not be “exemplary” according to this or that definition. I do my best to find the best quality recordings of the material I like to listen to in order to evaluate FW. These 2 recordings serve me well in this respect. Some may consider they are “lesser quality material”. The question begs itself – lesser than what? Possibly lesser than an imaginary ideal – or what one imagines was in the mind of the producer, or what one actually knows was in his/her mind. But certainly not lesser than earlier recordings of the same material. And certainly not lesser in terms of being able to easily use this material to look at FW vis a vis changes in detail and sound stage and other parameters.
This was the point I was making in the first place, if one cares to read carefully what I said, instead of reacting to something one imagined was said, meant or implied. Some recordings, to my ears, in my system, are poor vis a vis being able to evaluate FW changes. Other recordings from the same era may be more appropriate – TO MY EARS IN MY SYSTEM with IMO embedded as is acknowledged by us all. If it is difficult to evaluate FW changes with certain recordings then it is worthwhile to seek out better versions of the same recordings for this purpose, if possible. Otherwise, well-recorded versions of other recordings from the same era may be useful. The 2 recordings I have cited here are not poor in this respect – to my ears and in my system, at any rate.
I have been “accused” of being offensive and/or elitist, with a sharp tone of irritation – and more – in many responses – simply because I have expressed my opinions, and for the direct way that I express myself. I am not slighted or offended in the least. Frankly, I do not give a hoot what others think – those who are picayune and feel they have been provoked when they have not been. I came to this forum as a friend. I am certainly a friend of PS Audio and Yale. If others want to see me otherwise – up to them. I feel like Clark Cable. Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. This is just audio recreation for me – between taking care of business and taking care of business. Nothing more.
Regarding recordings, I am concerned about how recordings actually sound vis a vis new FW, not about how they “should” sound. To my ears the 2 recordings that I have cited are beautiful both as regards guitar work as well as sound stage/imaging. They enable me to evaluate new FW very well in my system, especially Yale. That’s good enough for me. I have some wonderful classical guitar recordings that I also like to listen to. But for testing purposes I like to use these 2 recordings that I enjoy very much. Simple. While some may wish to harken back to my earlier use of the word “poor” , may I note that my remarks were misquoted/edited since they left out “in my system and IMO’” . This misquoting/editing was used to “accuse” me of trying to exculpate myself from the false implications made by the party making that “accusation”.
Kindly read my posts closely. What some folks interpret from my statements may actually be unrelated to what was actually stated, implied or intended. This clear fact seems to have eluded many and ended with unnecessarily argumentative responses – the posters essentially arguing with a false image they themselves created out of my post. I take no affront – especially when others who are careful enough to quote me accurately think that my choices are poor – according to their way of seeing things. Different people may have a different perspective and different priorities. Different strokes for different folks. No harm done either way. I believe that tolerance should be the order of the day.
There are different ways of looking at things and different styles of expression. One size does not fit all. The intellectual “knowledgeable” way of looking at things is one way. It is not the only way. The same as there are different ways that different people listen to music. We probably need to move this to a new topic HERE. Let’s call it AUDIO DIALECTIC. LOL.
@Elk: That one would make a great avatar!
“Each was recorded expressly to obtain a particular coloration, a desired sound-type with choice of mics, mic pres, placement, etc.” - Elk
One of the demons of pop music, although they are better than a lot of the dreck out there. Even Dire Straits’ “Brothers in Arms” which is regarded by many as “good sound” suffers from this, and lots of other production tricks as well. It is still a very useful recording to evaluate system performance, especially if you are familiar with it (and damn tasty, too!).
“I am concerned about how recordings actually sound vis a vis new FW, not about how they “should” sound.” - Duke
An excellent point!
“Some material, to my ears, in my system, is poor vis a vis being able to evaluate FW changes.” - Duke
Excellent way to state this, as I have no argument with what you choose to use. For my part, I find that the firmware iterations change everything, even poopy old recordings from the 70’s with limited bandwidth and too much compression (CSN&Y, for instance). I may not care as much what these changes are with “lesser” material but they are there.
wglenn,
Points well made.
Duke of Earl saidFor me, finding the best recorded material for FW evaluation is like avatars. Most people find the best one for them – which hopefully includes having a bit of fun with it – then it’s done.
Exactly. It is not about finding the best quality recordings, but those that tell you, personally, the most. We see you now agree.
I did read your posts carefully. You were clear and emphatic as to your view.
Your first post begins Yale “deserves good SQ recordings to evaluate as many parameters as possible in the best possible light,”, you offered an analogy it is like shining a bright 100-watt bulb rather than trying to see with only 15-watts, "offer it the best you have, “Lesser quality material will not show the improvements rendered by new FW to the same extent.” You continue, “If one wants to do the best evaluation of the FW’s potential, high quality remasters offer that opportunity more than the original recordings.”
This position made little sense to me, and to others. We stated our disagreement. We have now thoroughly discussed and it. It appears you have now changed your view as a result of this discussion, an admirable quality.
As to the pop guitar recordings, I fully agree that if you find them useful you absolutely should use them. I do not find they sound like a guitar, but rather as the producer wanted them to sound. Thus, you need to know the sound of these recordings and how they present on various systems, rather than evaluate your system by whether they sound like a guitar when played. OTOH, if you want recordings that sound like a guitar, there are better choices.
Great discussion/topic, part of the Yale discussion was how it was boring or flat sounding to some listeners. I have some specific recordings good and bad that I use to test the swing or Prat of my or any system and if it can make me melt into the music and forget about the audiophile “stuff” then all is well. That’s why I like Maceo Parker, he epitomizes funk in his playing and Children’s World is a great example… Miles Davis’ Human Nature Live is not a good recording but Kenny Garrett’s solo is phenomenal and if listening to that can make you slide back into your seat and get into his solo work the system is doing it’s job and Hugh Masekela’s Stimela, he is sending a message in his music and it is one of the most emotionally involving pieces this side of Jasha Heifeitz. I use other recordings of higher quality to listen for other stuff like how vocals sit in the mix, Jacintha, Rickie Lee Jones, Cassandra Wilson, etc., piano work, Keith Jarrett, Hiromi, Oscar Peterson, etc.
Yale alone was getting me there though adding the Regen has gotten me there
Keep the discussion going, I’m getting some great recordings out of it Elk can you give some examples of great classical guitar albums that you mentioned above (though not classical I’m a big Pat Metheny guy
).
@Elk
There never was a disagreement – only a perceived disagreement. I have not changed my view. There was no need to do so since a close reading stated “in my system and IMO” – that was edited out by those who chose to see contention where there was none. This position may make little sense to you (and others) – using better quality versions rather than lesser quality versions – with which to judge FW upgrades. But it makes a lot of sense to me (and others). Each to his own. Different strokes for different folks. Trying to assume unanimity here makes little sense to me. The forum should be open to all opinions. It should not be about seeking unanimity and marginalizing the opinions of those who do not agree.
You do not find that these James Taylor and Gordon Lightfoot recordings sound like guitar? Really? They don’t sound like any other instrument to me. I don’t know how many people would agree with you on this one since you often like to quote what others say to back up your opinions. In fact, your observation makes little sense to me.
Duke of Earl said …“I feel like Clark Cable. Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” [note: assume you mean Clark Gable]
Frankly, Duke of Earl, I think you do. In fact I think you care greatly given the number of rebuttals you have made to the base assertion. I think you are quite passionate about the subject, and I commend you for that. Passion is a pretty important part of this hobby, wish I had a little more, but that’s another topic…
I do think you should give Master Elk some leeway on the sound of instruments, he is an accomplished musician who has also done recordings, so he speaks from experience. That’s not to say you aren’t experienced, quite honestly I don’t know, but it’s probably time to agree to disagree.
Duke of Earl said @ElkThere was no need to do so since a close reading. . .
You implored " if one cares to read carefully what I said." I did, and quoted it so that I did not misstate what you wrote.
Please remember we do not know anything about what you think or believe other than what you choose to write. If you do not mean what you write, do not post it. Strong opinions are welcome and fun to discuss. Changing one’s mind as a result means you learned something. I like changing my mind when provided with good information and persuasive arguments. It means my understanding is now better and more through.
Different strokes for different folks. Trying to assume unanimity here makes little sense to me. The forum should be open to all opinions.Which is exactly what I and others stated in the beginning. We are now all in agreement. Cool, huh?
You find “It may sometimes be difficult to distinguish one FW iteration from another when using lesser quality material for evaluation.” I response I wrote: “I do not have this difficulty. My guess is few do. “Lesser” recordings reveal as much, sometimes more, than “really good” recordings.” Neither is globally right or wrong.
You do not find that these James Taylor and Gordon Lightfoot recordings sound like guitar? Really? They don't sound like any other instrument to me.I assume you apply a much higher standard to recordings that you can identify the instrument playing. This is a very low bar. The cheapest portable cassette player, throw away ear buds and a home made cassette recorded by a aspiration ten year-old guitarist will accomplish this.
Rather, for me, a truly exceptional recording of an acoustic instrument sounds like that instrument played in an actual acoustic space, replete with accurate timbre, micro-dynamics and even little quirks (such as fret noise). In this example, it actually sounds like a real guitar.
As pop recordings they are fine, but they were made to create the pop guitar sound which was preferred and expected at the time - not like an actual guitar played in front of you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this; we want our recorded R&B trumpets to bite even more they do in real life, to hear every lip smack of the comely blond vocalist. But I do not rank such recordings in the upper echelon of sound reproduction. You may, and this is perfectly fine.
mb1534 said Elk can you give some examples of great classical guitar albums that you mentioned above (though not classical I'm a big Pat Metheny guy).Ralph Towner recordings on ECM have nice sound, although he is not classical guitar per se and may appeal. Julian Bream's last studio recording, Sonata, is well-performed and has good sound. I personally do not care for the sound of his earlier recordings, but the playing is always excellent. Christopher Parkening's Bach recordings are all very nice. Eduardo Fernandez plays wonderfully and was recorded by Decca in the Henry Wood Hall. Great stuff. John Williams, Two Guitar Concertos - Rodrigo and Dodgson, with the English Chamber Orchestra. Kazuhito Yamashita is an astounding technician, with recordings of his own transcriptions of works like Pictures at an Exhibition and the Firebird. Many examples of these performers and others can be found on YouTube and you can check them out to see if you like the music.
mb1534 said Great discussion/topic, part of the Yale discussion was how it was boring or flat sounding to some listeners.Yes, and I am trying to learn and understand why. I do not have this experience with any system. I find all systems, even very modest, to insist that I listen to them. Put me in an Olive Garden and I will listen to the background music, distracted to the world. Sad, yes?
I am fascinated that a large number of you indicate that certain firmware keeps you from tapping your toes. Something would need to be astoundingly wrong for this to occur to me. But I know that you are not talking about such gross characteristics, but something much more subtle, intuitive in fact - which is why it is so hard for people here to describe.
But I’ll keep at it. It is fascinating to me that this ineffable characteristic is so critical to others.
Funny but good read
what’s best is to the individuals choice although I would think there should be some parameters for group. Trouble is there is never absolution I groups so again no uniforcstion of the topic at hand.
May view as most may feel is different it’s perception of being there not its performance
in fact with close mic stuff that I love I like to find the odd stuff. Bad mixing and the like.
Listen to cat Stevins sad Lisa
greet song good recoding horrible mixing by what I like. Still it’s a reference I use. Sacd rip
al
mb1534 said Great discussion/topic, part of the Yale discussion was how it was boring or flat sounding to some listeners ... I have some specific recordings good and bad that I use to test the swing or Prat of my or any system ... Miles Davis' Human Nature Live is not a good recording but Kenny Garrett's solo is phenomenal ... I use other recordings of higher quality to listen for other stuff like how vocals sit in the mix ...
I do the same kind of thing as you do. I use a number of recordings that highlight the various parameters to gauge the changes that Yale makes. For instance, I use Johnny Rivers Summer Rain The Essential Rivers 1964-1975 (Raven) to gauge low level detail and imaging. The flute on Poor Side of Town enables me to do this. To confirm the progress of low level detail and imaging I also use Van Morrison Still on Top (Polydor). Right at the end when the singer says Did Ye Get Healed this gives me a good idea of these changes. These are not the only recordings I use for low level detail and imaging. But they are bellweathers in my system.
pmotz said Duke of Earl said ..."I feel like Clark Cable. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." [note: assume you mean Clark Gable]pmotz,Frankly, Duke of Earl, I think you do. In fact I think you care greatly given the number of rebuttals you have made to the base assertion. I think you are quite passionate about the subject, and I commend you for that. Passion is a pretty important part of this hobby, wish I had a little more, but that’s another topic…
I do think you should give Master Elk some leeway on the sound of instruments, he is an accomplished musician who has also done recordings, so he speaks from experience. That’s not to say you aren’t experienced, quite honestly I don’t know, but it’s probably time to agree to disagree.
I give a damn about music. It is indeed a passion that has been with me all my life. I trained for 12 years as a classical pianist at The Conservatory of Music from age 7. But I do not give a damn what my detractors may say when they misquote and edit what I say. It is indeed time to agree to disagree as you so rightly point out. This has been the bottom line of my comments throughout. We sometimes look at things from different viewpoints. That’s all.