Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Halcro dm38 or Mark Levinson No.33H?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 4:28:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I want to upgrade my system:

Parasound P3
Parasound JC1
Martin Logan Prodigy
Sony SCD-1

Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson
No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy?

Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the
SCD-1?

Thanks in advance!

Lawrence
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 6:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From a practical point of view - you should find something that is stable
and can produce the right amount of voltage at 20kHz at about 1 Ohm or so.
The Parasound JC1 I don't know about, but the Halcro isn't supposed to be as
good at driving such loads as Levinson - though both may be a lot more money
than would be required - you may find that a better preamp is a good choice
- or a CD component capable of driving the amps directly and avoiding the
preamp altogether!

I think you would be best served by getting a better source - though you
would be hard pressed finding a better CD/SACD player than the Sony - though
given your budgets for the other parts of the system the MF Tri-Vista would
be a good contender, Wadia 861 or a DCS stack would all be worth looking at,
too.

On 9/27/04 8:28 PM, in article cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com, "Lawrence"
<cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I want to upgrade my system:
>
> Parasound P3
> Parasound JC1
> Martin Logan Prodigy
> Sony SCD-1
>
> Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson
> No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy?
>
> Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the
> SCD-1?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Lawrence
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 3:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:

> I want to upgrade my system:
>
> Parasound P3
> Parasound JC1
> Martin Logan Prodigy
> Sony SCD-1
>
> Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson
> No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy?
>
> Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other
> than the SCD-1?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Lawrence

How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
Related resources
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 10:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> I want to upgrade my system:
>>
>> Parasound P3
>> Parasound JC1
>> Martin Logan Prodigy
>> Sony SCD-1
>>
>> Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson
>> No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy?
>>
>> Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other
>> than the SCD-1?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Lawrence
>
>How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?

Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
way different from each other?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 3, 2004 1:59:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cjmrjs0aim@news4.newsguy.com:

> On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>>
>>How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
>
> Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
> there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
> Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
> amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
> preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
> way different from each other?

What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have
you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what
make you say that they have no difference?

I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which
quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science?

Lawrence
October 3, 2004 6:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:cjmrjs0aim@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
>>
>>Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
>>there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
>>Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
>>amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
>>preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
>>way different from each other?
>
>
> What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have
> you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what
> make you say that they have no difference?

Uhh, what is your problem? You asked for opinions, and Stewart gave you
his honest opinion, which is also an opinion that can save you a lot of
money.

>
> I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which
> quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science?

You are confusing the art of music with the science of audio
reproduction. Your amp is an instrument for audio reproduction. Your amp
is not the artist or the musician. It predictably reproduces the signal
it receives. Amps can be characterized accurately using science.
Anonymous
October 3, 2004 7:30:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/3/04 10:47 AM, in article cjp3db02lnv@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2004 21:59:20 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:cjmrjs0aim@news4.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>>
>>>> How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
>>>
>>> Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
>>> there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
>>> Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
>>> amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
>>> preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
>>> way different from each other?
>>
>> What is your problem man?
>
> I don't have one, but it seems that you do, which I presume is why you
> asked the question.

Your response to him was rather abrasive.

I do have a question - given the buried assumption that you have listened to
both the NAD and the Halcro - what were your impression? What was the DBT
or other test you performed to come to that conclusion?

I don't think the original poster was asking your opinion of the NAD C370 (I
assume you mean the preamp C172, not the integrated amplifier you are
talking about) but the Halcro dm10.

I would think that you then would assume, without listening to a system
using the dm10 that you would have a favorable review of it in absolute
performance, but scores rather low in the value equation?
Anonymous
October 3, 2004 7:30:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/3/04 10:35 AM, in article cjp2n90304e@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have
>> you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what
>> make you say that they have no difference?
>
> Uhh, what is your problem? You asked for opinions, and Stewart gave you
> his honest opinion, which is also an opinion that can save you a lot of
> money.

He asked the groups opinion of the dm10, not on general "objectivist"
philosophy and the review of the NAD.

He might save even more money if he were to buy the preamp - the C370 is an
integrated amp, no a preamp if we are picking nits...
October 3, 2004 9:17:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 10/3/04 10:35 AM, in article cjp2n90304e@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have
>>>you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what
>>>make you say that they have no difference?
>>
>>Uhh, what is your problem? You asked for opinions, and Stewart gave you
>>his honest opinion, which is also an opinion that can save you a lot of
>>money.
>
>
> He asked the groups opinion of the dm10, not on general "objectivist"
> philosophy and the review of the NAD.

Somehow you seem to miss the essence of the opinion that he received:
the dm10 sounds the same as any competent pre-amp. Like the NAD. WHy
wouldn't that opinion count as an opinion, and a legitimate response to
the question asked?

>
> He might save even more money if he were to buy the preamp - the C370 is an
> integrated amp, no a preamp if we are picking nits...

You have trouble understanding that the C370 has a line stage? That it
is perfectly possible comparing the sound of the C370 vs the dm10?
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 2:44:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which
> quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science?

Making music and reproducing music are very different quests, but
unfortunately often confused together.
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 2:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless!

After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier
is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! If
your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still
expensive!

I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote
your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he
honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either
Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the
NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson.

And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No.
33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD
C370?"

Thank you for your input. But no thanks!

Lawrence
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 7:58:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
No.
33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
NAD
C370?""

The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone
now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to
be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker
choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:43:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote in news:cjqhp801c70@news4.newsguy.com:

> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38
> and No.
> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding
> my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like
> the NAD
> C370?""
>
> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no
> then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them
> irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using
> listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most
> likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough
> power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc.
> then you have your answer.

Well! First of all, have you or have you not ever listen to the dm38, the
No. 33H and the wonderful C370? If not, conversation is over.

If you have, and you solemly said that the US$899 NAD C370 sounds the same
as the US$19,000 dm38 or the US$22,500 No. 33H. Well, congragulation, you
can save a lot of money from now on, or may be you can go back to Bestbuy
to get one of that bloombox, sure it will sound the same to you either...

Well, I guess you are on the "wire is wire", "amplifer is amplifer", or
might even be "everything is the same" except that "we all know that ONLY
speakers and room treatment" will make the difference?

Then, again, conversation is over. We are on a difference channel.

I believe everyone post a question here want an answer. I am asking an
opinion between the dm38 and No. 33H, or even the dm10, or the SCD-1. So,
if anyone cannot understand my question enough and keep on telling me that
neither dm38 nor No. 33H, buy the cheap C370! We are on a difference
channel and please stop replying to this post! You can open up another post
said, "dm38, No.33H or C370, which is better?"

Lawrence
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:44:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence wrote:

> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:cjmrjs0aim@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
>>
>>Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
>>there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
>>Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
>>amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
>>preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
>>way different from each other?
>
>
> What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have
> you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what
> make you say that they have no difference?

Did you even read Stewart's reply?

You asked the question "How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?" (I left the
grammatical errors uncorrected in that quote, btw)
And he said "Just like the line stage of the NAD C370."

So, what's your problem then?
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:44:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote:

> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
> No.
> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
> NAD
> C370?""
>
> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
> other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
> to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone
> now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to
> be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker
> choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer.

I think the OP was hoping for opinions like

"yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
"Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
"Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"

instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:45:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 3 Oct 2004 15:30:03 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 10/3/04 10:47 AM, in article cjp3db02lnv@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2004 21:59:20 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:cjmrjs0aim@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:cjab7b0a9g@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?
>>>>
>>>> Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is
>>>> there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the
>>>> Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi'
>>>> amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level
>>>> preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any
>>>> way different from each other?
>>>
>>> What is your problem man?
>>
>> I don't have one, but it seems that you do, which I presume is why you
>> asked the question.
>
>Your response to him was rather abrasive.

Please specify exactly what is 'abrasive' in the above comment.

>I do have a question - given the buried assumption that you have listened to
>both the NAD and the Halcro - what were your impression? What was the DBT
>or other test you performed to come to that conclusion?

I've listened to the NAD on several occasions, it appears to be
excellent value for money, and sounds just like my own Krell and
Audiolab gear, i.e. it doesnt *have* a 'sound' of its own, it just
faithfully (as in 'fidelity') passes the sound of the input signal. It
follows that if the Halcro (which I have only heard at an audio show,
hardly the best circumstance) sounds in any way different, then it's
doing something *bad* to the input signal. I am simply giving Halcro
the benefit of the doubt here, that it does not in fact sound *worse*
than the NAD - despite Martin Colloms comments.

>I don't think the original poster was asking your opinion of the NAD C370 (I
>assume you mean the preamp C172, not the integrated amplifier you are
>talking about) but the Halcro dm10.

I was referring to the input section of the C370, which is what I
stated. You'll generally find that what I say is what I mean.
Presumably *you* mean the C162, which is of course also an adequate
performer if you really need the extra power of a bigger amp than the
C370, or C372 as it now is, or if you want to place the power amp(s)
near the speakers. For the latter situation, I'd normally recommend a
balanced connection, but whatever.

>I would think that you then would assume, without listening to a system
>using the dm10 that you would have a favorable review of it in absolute
>performance, but scores rather low in the value equation?

Which is exactly what I said, so what's *your* problem?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:47:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence wrote:

> Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless!
>
> After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier
> is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! If
> your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still
> expensive!
>

eh, I think the qualifier is "all *competently designed* amplifiers sound the
same". Granted, amplifiers can be made to sound different (ie SET amps, valve
amps and certain SS amps) but they detract from the notion of high fidelity.

> I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote
> your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he
> honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either
> Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the
> NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson.

So your acquaintance quantifies amplifier quality with the price tag?
How will, in paraphrasing your acquaintance's own words, "A NAD ever come close
to a Halcro or Mark Levinson?". In what terms? Measurements? Build quality?
Difficult load driving ability?

>
> And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No.
> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD
> C370?"
>
> Thank you for your input. But no thanks!
>
> Lawrence

See my previous post. You asked "how does the Halcro DM10 sound?" and you
obviously didn't like the replies you got to that question.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:52:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> You got it. Basically, it was to wonder why you are considering such
> an expensive unit - and one which, by the way, is not highly regarded
> by that doyen of audio reviewers, Martin Colloms (for what that's
> worth).
>


Surely not the same Martin Colloms who wrote this article in praise of "Black
Gate capacitors"

http://www.audionote.co.uk/kits/black_gate_story_m_coll...

Sample quotes

"My task was complicated by early reports that a significant running in period
was required [several days] which unfortunately turned out to be true. Certainly
there were first impressions available right away which gave helpful clues but
at least a day or two was needed to begin to properly gauge the result. "

"I can only speculate that the high frequency current in the system must have
been in some sort of disordered exchange, power sharing above 10kHz or so,
because while the sound became clearer, it also became sharper and more
aggressively forward in the treble."

He also talks about running in hi-fi equipment. The Black Gate article he wrote
seems to be laced with the usual audiophool language!
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 3:53:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cjpvfd02blg@news1.newsguy.com>...
> Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless!

And yet you go on for several more paragraphs...
>
> After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement,

If it's so famous, who said it? (Answer: No one.)

> now there is "amplifier
> is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same!

Did he, now? Or did you simply misread him? Perhaps you'd care to
explain what you think Stewart meant by: "I grant you that they
*might* sound different".

> If
> your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still
> expensive!

Some NAD gear is well-made and good value. Other pieces are overpriced
junk.
>
> I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote
> your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he
> honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either
> Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the
> NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson.

Well, of course NAD doesn't compete with Mark Levinson. Levinson's
market is audiophies with lots of money. NAD's market is audiophiles
who wish they had lots of money (plus the occasional audiophile who
recognizes that more money doesn'necessarily buy you much more in the
way of amplifier performance). But NAD has just as great a stake in
the "all-amps-sound-different" game as Levinson does. NAD's trying to
get you to buy a $600 integrated amp instead of a $300 stereo
receiver. If NAD admitted that its amps sounded like most (not ALL!)
others, it wouldn't steal customers from Levinson; it would lose them
to Denon.

This is not to knock NAD. I'd buy their amps over a mass-market
receiver any day. But I wouldn't bet money that I could hear a
difference between the two!
>
> And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No.
> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD
> C370?"

Okay, how about this: If the dm38 and the 33H sound different, one of
them is garbage (or broken). But the odds are neither of them is
garbage, and they both sound the same. You could confirm this by
conducting a level-matched blind comparison of the two.
>
> Thank you for your input.

Any time!

bob
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 7:06:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I believe everyone post a question here want an answer. I am asking an
opinion between the dm38 and No. 33H, or even the dm10, or the SCD-1."

Given the current benchmark for amps using listening alone there is no
reason to think they will sound different, in that manner they are equally
"better", but of course appearence, bragging rights, color, size, etc.
have some value to some people and one can by using those criteria decide
one or another is thus "better"; that is an opinion. Another opinion is
that if using listening alone no difference, any difference can not be
heard then going to the next step to ask about "better" is irrelevant.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 3:48:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Oct 2004 23:47:39 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless!

Apparently, not so!

>> After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier
>> is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same!

I said no such thing. If you are going to complain about a reply to
*your* question, at least have the courtesy to report what was
actually said, not what you would *like* to have been said.

>> If
>> your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still
>> expensive!

It is the cheapest well-designed amplifier of its power capability of
which I am aware. Perhaps you can suggest a cheaper alternative which
will perform the same function?

>eh, I think the qualifier is "all *competently designed* amplifiers sound the
>same". Granted, amplifiers can be made to sound different (ie SET amps, valve
>amps and certain SS amps) but they detract from the notion of high fidelity.

Quite so.

>> I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote
>> your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he
>> honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either
>> Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the
>> NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson.
>
>So your acquaintance quantifies amplifier quality with the price tag?
>How will, in paraphrasing your acquaintance's own words, "A NAD ever come close
>to a Halcro or Mark Levinson?". In what terms? Measurements? Build quality?
>Difficult load driving ability?

Therein lies the problem. Lawrence was talking to a *sales* person,
not to an engineer. Since NAD places itself as 'entry level high end',
it is *essential* for their representatives to maintain the myth of
sonic difference, so that potential customers will buy NAD to get that
'high end' sound at an affordable price, rather than going for a
'mainstream' alternative such as Yamaha.

Of course, if what you are *really* after is bragging rights and a
shiny 'big boys toy', then agreed that a NAD isn't going to cut it!

>> And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No.
>> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
>> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD
>> C370?"
>>
>> Thank you for your input. But no thanks!
>>
>> Lawrence
>
>See my previous post. You asked "how does the Halcro DM10 sound?" and you
>obviously didn't like the replies you got to that question.

Therein lies the *real* problem. Lawrence doesn't actually want the
truth, as he has already decided that 'everything sounds different',
therefore he doesn't want anyone to tell him that a NAD sounds just
like a Halcro or ML. No, he wants us to tell him that the Halcro has
an effulgent depth of ambience not quite achievable by the 33H, but
that the 33H has a level of bass power and 'slam' which just evades
the more delicate pallette of the Halcro. Both are of course capable
of retrieving *far* more 'inner detail' and 'microdynamics' than the
mere NAD could ever hope to achieve. The NAD is adequate perhaps for
the hoi polloi, but not for the superior aesthetic sensibilities of
the true audiophile.

Is that better, Lawrence? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 3:50:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Oct 2004 23:43:44 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

>outsor@city-net.com wrote in news:cjqhp801c70@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38
>> and No.
>> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding
>> my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like
>> the NAD
>> C370?""
>>
>> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
>> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no
>> then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them
>> irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using
>> listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most
>> likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough
>> power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc.
>> then you have your answer.
>
>Well! First of all, have you or have you not ever listen to the dm38, the
>No. 33H and the wonderful C370? If not, conversation is over.

Two out of three, certainly. They sounded identical.

>If you have, and you solemly said that the US$899 NAD C370 sounds the same
>as the US$19,000 dm38 or the US$22,500 No. 33H. Well, congragulation, you
>can save a lot of money from now on, or may be you can go back to Bestbuy
>to get one of that bloombox, sure it will sound the same to you either...

Oh, so have *you* listened to the NAD, to make such a judgement? If
not, then the conversation is over, no? And, in addition to the
irrelevant and insulting reference to Bestbuy boomboxes, I note the
slyly inserted implication that the poster must be relatively deaf.

Tell us, why do *you* make the *assumption* (must be an assumption,
since you're asking for *advice* on the sound of these amplifiers)
that the Halcro and ML *must* sound different, both from each other
and from the NAD? It's 2004, sonically transparent amplifiers have
been available for more than twenty years, so it should be obvious
that if any amplfier *does* sound different from the general run, then
that is because it is actually *degrading* the input signal.

>Well, I guess you are on the "wire is wire", "amplifer is amplifer", or
>might even be "everything is the same" except that "we all know that ONLY
>speakers and room treatment" will make the difference?

Well, since *no one* has been able to demonstrate anything other than
that 'wire is wire', we can probably take that one as an accurate
statement. As for amplifiers, many of them do indeed sound different,
both from each other and from the input signal. These are known as
*bad* amplifiers. Luckily, there are lots of *good* amplifiers which
do indeed sound just like their input signal - and hence of course
they are also sonically identical.

>Then, again, conversation is over. We are on a difference channel.

Only in a fully balanced system..........

>I believe everyone post a question here want an answer. I am asking an
>opinion between the dm38 and No. 33H, or even the dm10, or the SCD-1. So,
>if anyone cannot understand my question enough and keep on telling me that
>neither dm38 nor No. 33H, buy the cheap C370!

Who said that? Not me, nor any other poster IIRC. What several people
have suggested is that they will all *sound* the same, and we all know
that sound quality is only *one* facet of the buying decison for most
'audiophiles' (whatever they might claim in public!). There's no
reason why you shouldn't buy the 33H or dm38 for their build quality
or very unusual styling, or even just for their nameplates. After all,
how many people buy a Ferrari Modena in the belief that it's actually
*faster* than a 911 Turbo - or even a Corvette?

If however you are trying to claim that the ML and Halcro amps *must*
sound different (and implied 'better') than the NAD, then please
explain on exactly what you base that opinion. Especially since you
have clearly not heard and compared the amplifiers in question.

> We are on a difference
>channel and please stop replying to this post! You can open up another post
>said, "dm38, No.33H or C370, which is better?"

So, which part of 'they will likely all sound the same' did you fail
to understand as a reasonable reply to your question? If you *don't*
want them to sound the same as each other (and hence also the same as
the input signal), please tell us how you'd like the output to be
*different* from the input, and we might be able to make some
suggestions. Many of those suggestions would be from really exotic
'audiophile' brands which might meet what I suspect are your *real*
requirements......................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 3:58:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...
> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>
>> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
>> No.
>> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
>> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
>> NAD
>> C370?""
>>
>> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
>> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
>> other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
>> to your original question. An established benchmark using listening
>> alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not
>> going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given
>> speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your
>> answer.
>
> I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
>
> "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
> "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
> "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
>
> instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.


I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
'competent' amplifiers?
Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half
a story told...
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 7:05:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all
such
'competent' amplifiers?
Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only
half
a story told..."

The current benchmark for testing The amps by listening alone results were
based on first being able to hear a difference, any difference at all;
including any or all of the presumed criteria you mention or anything else
one might think could reveal a difference. If no difference is heard it
is a fair conclusion that those or any other criteria for potentual
audible difference don't exist at a level to rise above the threshold of
audibility.

As an additional step it would be reasonable to question if those criteria
as reported in marketing/publishing descriptions might not exist except as
artifacts of the perception process in the brain after the signal reaches
the ears. If those criteria are reported to be present but disappear
during listening alone testing when the knowledge of which amp is being
used is not known, such a conclusion would seem to have been confirmed.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 7:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mike Gilmour" mike@tfjazz.freeserve.co.uk wrote:



>
>"Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...
>> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>>
>>> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
>>> No.
>>> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
>>> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
>>> NAD
>>> C370?""
>>>
>>> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
>>> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
>>> other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
>>> to your original question. An established benchmark using listening
>>> alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not
>>> going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given
>>> speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your
>>> answer.
>>
>> I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
>>
>> "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
>> "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
>> "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
>>
>> instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.
>
>
>I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
>competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
>then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
>'competent' amplifiers?
>Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
>scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
>objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
>pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half
>a story told...

All those opinions, criteria and characteristics are easily tested using
bias-controlled listening techniques. But, to date nobody has ever shown that
those characteristics are even audible, let alone important, under
bias-controlled conditions.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 3:38:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Gilmour <mike@tfjazz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...
> > outsor@city-net.com wrote:
> >
> >> "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
> >> No.
> >> 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
> >> question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
> >> NAD
> >> C370?""
> >>
> >> The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
> >> among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
> >> other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
> >> to your original question. An established benchmark using listening
> >> alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not
> >> going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given
> >> speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your
> >> answer.
> >
> > I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
> >
> > "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
> > "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
> > "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
> >
> > instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.


> I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
> competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
> then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
> 'competent' amplifiers?
> Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
> scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
> objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
> pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half
> a story told...


Let's start with first things first?
Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals
to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace'
mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same?

Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile.
Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 3:44:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mike Gilmour" <mike@tfjazz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cjvcf302cec@news2.newsguy.com>...
> "Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...

> > I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
> >
> > "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
> > "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
> > "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
> >
> > instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.
>
>
> I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
> competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
> then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
> 'competent' amplifiers?

Yes for soundstaging. "Rhythm" and "pace" are entirely mental
constructs, at least in terms of sound reproduction (unless you're
talking about wow and flutter, not typically a problem with
*competent* amps). All competent amps sound different if you let your
imagination run wild!

> Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
> scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
> objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
> pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc.

"We" don't have to characterize them at all. All "we" have to do is
find someone--anyone-- who can differentiate (blind, of course)
between two amps that "you" claim differ in one or more of these
characteristics. So far, "we" haven't been able to find anyone who can
do that. Have "you"?

> Maybe its really only half
> a story told...

Or maybe you just haven't finished the book yet.

bob
October 7, 2004 3:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Gilmour wrote:
> "Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>>outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
>>>No.
>>>33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my
>>>question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the
>>>NAD
>>>C370?""
>>>
>>>The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
>>>among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
>>>other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
>>>to your original question. An established benchmark using listening
>>>alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not
>>>going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given
>>>speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your
>>>answer.
>>
>>I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
>>
>>"yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
>>"Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
>>"Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
>>
>>instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.
>
>
>
> I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
> competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
> then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
> 'competent' amplifiers?

Well, if two amps sound the same, then of course they will have the same
degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace, etc. (whatever those terms mean), no?

> Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
> scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
> objective testing.

Those terms are not scientifically defined, so of course they cannot be
used as criteria for scientific or objective testing.

> How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
> pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half
> a story told...

Not sure what your point is. I place very little weight on reviewers'
evaluation of "rhythm, pace, soundstaging", etc. It's creative writing,
as far as I am concerned.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 4:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Gilmour wrote:

> "Tat Chan" <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cjsn9f076u@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>>outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>>

>>>The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard
>>>among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then
>>>other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant
>>>to your original question. An established benchmark using listening
>>>alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not
>>>going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given
>>>speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your
>>>answer.
>>
>>I think the OP was hoping for opinions like
>>
>>"yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y"
>>"Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z"
>>"Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character"
>>
>>instead of objective testing amplifier techniques.
>
>
>
> I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
> competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we
> then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such
> 'competent' amplifiers?
> Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under
> scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of
> objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm,
> pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half
> a story told...
>

Uhm, I was taking the piss with my comment about rhythm and pace,
soundstage, etc.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 9:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6 Oct 2004 23:38:47 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Let's start with first things first?
>Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals
>to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace'
>mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same?
>
>Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile.
>Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there.

Depends what you call luck! See for example this twaddle from IAR,
contained in a review of the VTL Siegfried:

" It's instructive to contrast Siegfried's sound with that from
Halcro's highly praised dm 58/68 (its largest amplifiers), which we
have auditioned several times driving revealing loudspeakers such as
the Wilson Grand Slamm. Halcro's premium amplifiers are also very
clean, transparent, and wide range (and incidentally sound much better
than the smaller Halcro dm38 stereo amplifier). This Halcro reveals a
lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music.
Its output does not sound like the real thing, like live acoustic
music actually sounds. Without going into our usual detailed analysis,
the Halcro's sound can be summarized as being artificially electric,
illuminating the music in a too bright artificial light at too high a
color temperature, thereby rendering the musical information with some
artificial hardness and glare."

Yeah, riiiiight, very informative.............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:55:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck57f502r1o@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 6 Oct 2004 23:38:47 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's start with first things first?
> >Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals
> >to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace'
> >mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same?
> >
> >Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile.
> >Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there.
>
> Depends what you call luck! See for example this twaddle from IAR,
> contained in a review of the VTL Siegfried:
>
> " It's instructive to contrast Siegfried's sound with that from
> Halcro's highly praised dm 58/68 (its largest amplifiers), which we
> have auditioned several times driving revealing loudspeakers such as
> the Wilson Grand Slamm. Halcro's premium amplifiers are also very
> clean, transparent, and wide range (and incidentally sound much better
> than the smaller Halcro dm38 stereo amplifier). This Halcro reveals a
> lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music.
> Its output does not sound like the real thing, like live acoustic
> music actually sounds. Without going into our usual detailed analysis,
> the Halcro's sound can be summarized as being artificially electric,
> illuminating the music in a too bright artificial light at too high a
> color temperature, thereby rendering the musical information with some
> artificial hardness and glare."
>
> Yeah, riiiiight, very informative.............

Actually, over twenty-five years there have been several amps described this
same way. I've heard some of them and wouldn't have them in my system
(heard them before reading the criticism, to head you off at the pass). The
Early Classe's come to mind, the early Thresholds, and several others I can
no longer recall. Don't know much about recent transistor amps as I haven't
seriously auditioned any other than the CJ 2000 series during that time
frame....and this is certainly not a problem with the CJ series.
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 7:30:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/8/04 1:09 AM, in article ck57f502r1o@news2.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> This Halcro reveals a
> lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music.

I took this part of your post, Stewart - and while I won't comment on
whether it was the amp or not that did this (have no idea, though Halcro
amps seems to not mess up the sound very badly) - I think it highlighted a
big problem with audiophilia in general (and one that I struggle with once
in awhile) - the pursuit of an impossible goal of 'realism' - the closer you
get, the more noticeable the deficiencies of a system.

I have found the best sound available is to go out and actually listen to a
live performance - reproduction, while the only option in a lot of ways -
heightened realism has some serious drawbacks.

Kind of like computer animation - the closer you get to "reality" the more
noticeable and glaring minor deficiencies become. Look at _Toy Story_ or
_Monsters Inc_ compared to _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_. The former
is definitely NOT realistic as far as the animation, but you are pulled into
the story (albeit a kids one) and carried along disbelief happily suspended.
The latter has an equally interesting story (but targeted at teens and young
adults) but every so often, the slight errors in realism (and very slight
ones) destroy the suspension of disbelief.

So arguably an audiophile's goal is to have the most realistic performance
possible - but is that goal 100% legitimate?
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 7:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ck906c0luo@news3.newsguy.com>...

> I have found the best sound available is to go out and actually listen to a
> live performance - reproduction, while the only option in a lot of ways -
> heightened realism has some serious drawbacks.

I once went to an exhibition of a painting style called
"super-realism." It seemed like the painter was using whatever tricks
were at his disposal to make things seem more realistic than reality.

But there are a couple differences between painting and audio. The
painter is not trying to achieve photographic accuracy. Second, the
accuracy of reproduction is virtually guaranteed, since it mainly
involves looking at a painting hanging on a wall.

I am guessing that with audio, primary control of "realism" occurs
during the recording process. By the time it gets to your house, the
options for achieving more or less "realism" with competently designed
equipment is limited to the problem of speakers and their placement.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 5:35:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: elephantcelebes@yahoo.com (Georg Grosz)
>Date: 10/11/2004 8:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cke98m0f71@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:<ck906c0luo@news3.newsguy.com>...
>
>> I have found the best sound available is to go out and actually listen to a
>> live performance - reproduction, while the only option in a lot of ways -
>> heightened realism has some serious drawbacks.
>
>I once went to an exhibition of a painting style called
>"super-realism." It seemed like the painter was using whatever tricks
>were at his disposal to make things seem more realistic than reality.

It should have been called hyper-realism which was a branch of surrealism. It
isn't photorealism though. The goals are quite different.


>
>But there are a couple differences between painting and audio. The
>painter is not trying to achieve photographic accuracy.

Unless he or she is doing photorealism. Then the painter is very much trying to
achieve photgraphic accuracy. Some painters do an amazingly good job of it too.


Second, the
>accuracy of reproduction is virtually guaranteed, since it mainly
>involves looking at a painting hanging on a wall.

It is hardly guaranteed. There are beginer and even bad photorealists in this
world. Only afew are really good enough to fool the eye.


>
>I am guessing that with audio, primary control of "realism" occurs
>during the recording process. By the time it gets to your house, the
>options for achieving more or less "realism" with competently designed
>equipment is limited to the problem of speakers and their placement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
!