If you find that sitting around listenning to music is fatiguing, you have some serious physical fitness issues. Get more exercize.

This message was edited by G50AE on 09/07/03 15:31.

Thanks for the exhortation to better health, but I'm talking about an effect on the body, not sitting around.

Have you ever heard a violin at three paces? I describe that like it is a weapon because the sound coming off the string sometimes feels like it could cut you in two.

Just passively listening to that can indeed be fatiguing. Listening with interest can be quite exciting. Listening when you actively don't want to can make you want to throttle somebody.

So what I am getting at is, are there subtleties of sound that we do not hear in recordings, and that we do not even realize are missing, because we are so used to recorded music (and not so used to live music)? These people who point out that some parameter called fatigue comes across from some recording methods, but do not even seem to think about whether the live music has that same quality, may be completely misleading themselves and all of us.

I have a LOT of recordings that are not fatiguing. They are 78 rpm records, and most of them do not have any sound above about 5 kHz. I have a couple that I bought totally unused and they will knock your socks off. Is that fatiguing? Did that medium somehow capture an essential part of the sound that many modern recording methods cannot?

Yes, I have. I've also heard a Double-bass at six inches. That's how far your head is away from the fingerboard. The bass response is great.


Just because you're listening to a musician with no talent is not a reason to blame the instrument.


I bet you find chess to be a strenuous workout.


Just because you like listening to "Ten Little Indians" on your Fisher-Price record player, doesn't mean it's high quality music.

Maybe you should go hear some good live music.

Yes, Ernie. I find some live events fatiguing. But usually there is a direct correlation to distance.

Strings are tiring, so are certain other instruments. Can't really come up with a list offhand, haven't thought about it in a long while.

None of these is as bad as CD, however.

G50, this isn't my muscles getting tired. It is weariness brought on by the sound. And it is less bad with more skill of the artist, but scraping strings is painful to the ears in certain conditions no matter what. Back off a couple steps and that goes away, IME. I simply wouldn't be able to play violin much, too high pitched for my ears at a couple inch range.

BTW, (and no doubt this will shock you) different people have different tolerancies for their senses. How much heat on their hand, how loud sound of various types can be played, etc. If it doesn't bother you as much, great.

The quality of sound from a CD does depend alot on the quality of the CD recording, as well as the quality of the components in the playback system. Observing that a scratched CD played in your BOSE shelf system sounds bad, while probably true, is not a carte blanche to write off all CD's as sounding bad.

It surprises me that HDCD technology has not become more widespread, both on the hardware side and on the software side.

G50,

I do not own anything by Bose. When I was 17 and buying my first set of speakers, I didn't like the way Bose sounded and purchased Polk Audio instead. Now that I've learned a bit more and my ears have become more refined, I can hardly believe I even considered Bose back then, they sound so horrible. Please don't be insipid, or I will simply go back to being nasty to you.

CD is not as good as better formats. Period. Why is this discussion even going on?? Do you think my 14 year old Taurus can beat a BMW M5 off the line, too? Comparing CD to LP, DVD-A, SACD shows that CD has a cold, digital sound that is not as pleasing. While it does have better range than LP, I still prefer listening to LP as it doesn't strain my ears and brain. The new digital formats are even better. The one place CD has all comers beat is availability. Which is worth something, but we've been discussing audio, not what's on the rack at Best Buy.

BTW, a scratched CD should have no audible difference to a non-scratched CD. Unless the scratch actually stops the sound for a moment. Also, that is what my Skip Doctor is for.

If you have dulled your ears to the point that you don't realize CD isn't all that great, sorry. Pretty much 99% of us get to look forward to that day, I hope it's a long way off for myself. Keeps my father in business. (hearing aids)

So you admit that you were wrecking this forum with your constant incivillity a few monthes back. I've noticed things have imporved signifigantly since avgenius (a misnomer if I ever heard one) took a hike. If you can't maintain a basic iota of civility then maybe you too need to take a hike.


Agreed. I have never said that CD was as good as SACD or DVD-A. If it were, these formats would not exist.


Again you need to compare apples to apples, a poorly recorded album in any media is going to sound bad. The reason we are having this discusion is because the first CD's were recorded poorly and digital mastering techniques had not been perfected. That's the past, CD recording and manufacturing techniques have vastly improved since then. Optical discs, in their many forms can be produced with alot higher production consistancy than vinyl.


Again, I've never said anything to the contrary.


And durability, consistancy, frequency responce, lack of need for special preamp stage, portability, more rugged playback system, along with probably a few other points I am missing.


True, that's another area where CD has vinyl beat.

This whole discussion has been rife with silly nasty bits. SACD sounds great in stereo. The quality of your player is a limiting factor like any other format. DSD recorded SACD's rule! Stuff from analog or PCM masters fulfill less of the format's potential. Some labels: Chesky, Heads Up, Telarc, Groove Note, DMP, and a few others have stuff that's DSD recorded. Sony has a few...Jorma Kaukonen's BLUE COUNTRY HEART and Joe Satriani's STRANGE BEAUTIFUL MUSIC come to mind. They both sound fabulous, stereo or multichannel.

Some of the old stuff on SACD sounds as good or better than pristene vinyl. Blue Oyster Cult's AGENTS OF FORTUNE beats the vinyl and has the M/C option too.

IMO, SACD nearly always sounds better than CD in atleast some suble ways, such as:

a better bass line, more detailed, less fuzzy...

horns really sound better via SACD

acoustic piano seems better

I've heard a scant few SACD's that sound identical to a CD counterpart. The Hong Kong hybrid SACD of Los Indios Tabajaras sounds the same as it's own CD layer and the same as another CD I have of them with common material. Sony's Santana's ABRAXAS sounds about the same as the CD or record...poor, badly recorded. Great album, but poor sonics!

Mobile Fidelity is doing wonders with their new hybrid, stereo releases, IMO....so is Analogue Productions & Audio Fidelity. Audio Fidelity's hybrid of The Zombies's Greatest Hits is amazing for early 60's material!!! El disco de Zombies es muy cultura!!! Steve Hoffman did it, mastered it, enough said!

To see the stuff from the smaller labels (read: not Sony or Universal) try these sites:

www.acousticsounds.com
www.elusivedisc.com
www.musicdirect.com

I wouldn't have SACD if I couldn't get great stereo out of it first and foremost. I'm gradually warming up to M/C too.

Can also now vouch for Acoustic Sounds - even though I live on the other side of the pond. Excellent service.

Many thanks for the link Rach.

Realy?