What widely-held AK view do you not share?

repo_code

somewhere in the 20th c.
I'll go first:

Psychoacoustic compression (mp3, etc) is surprisingly good!

A 160kbps mp3 from a good encoder sounds better than FM radio or a cassette tape. It sounds better than, say, uncompressed audio while your neighbor mows his lawn outside your closed window.

That's not much to give up for the tech that makes internet radio, satellite radio, and HD radio possible.

(I'm not defending dynamic range compression, that's the devil's work.)
 
I kind of agree with you. Data compression for music has changed it forever, both for good and bad. But it's not inherently bad, it's really a cool technology.

I also don't think dynamic range compression is the devil's work. Without it, pop and rock music would be largely unlistenable. Like all tools, it can be misused and often is. But much of the slam and immediacy of rock & roll is the result of compression.
 
This is like trying to teach a waiter who carried the plates for 40 years on his left arm to start using his right one.

1) Useless exercise.
2) Will end with broken plates and everyone with no dinner.
3) Phunny.

Carry on! :lurk:
 
I'll go first:

Psychoacoustic compression (mp3, etc) is surprisingly good!

A 160kbps mp3 from a good encoder sounds better than FM radio or a cassette tape. It sounds better than, say, uncompressed audio while your neighbor mows his lawn outside your closed window.

That's not much to give up for the tech that makes internet radio, satellite radio, and HD radio possible.

(I'm not defending dynamic range compression, that's the devil's work.)

I would consider myself to be pretty picky, but Spotify/MOG's 320 (OGG Vorbis and MP3 respectively) sounds excellent. :music:

Digital compression has gotten to the point where the recording and mastering is far more important than bitrate (beyond a certain point).
 
Another one:

Everyone says you should replace electrolytic caps when gear gets to be 25 years old. Or 15. Or 50. Or something. Right?

This year I've finished repairs on a stereo tube console (1964), a Kenwood receiver (1980-ish), and a NAD integrated amp (1996-ish.) Bad caps caused none of their problems. Zero.

I've pulled one cap that didn't measure on spec, from a scorched power amp PCB in a Sanyo receiver that's still in progress. Could that have been old age? Maybe, but I bet it got blown up when the amp went POOF.
 
I have quite a few, but it won't do a bit of good for me to mention any of them.

They wouldn't change their minds, nor would I no matter how long we discussed it.
 
I would consider myself to be pretty picky, but Spotify/MOG's 320 (OGG Vorbis and MP3 respectively) sounds excellent. :music:

Digital compression has gotten to the point where the recording and mastering is far more important than bitrate (beyond a certain point).

Totally agree. I can't A/B/X a high bitrate vs. CD on good equipment. Other factors matter more.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the whole craze with vintage receivers is more visual than audible. The ones I've come across have never sounded as good as they look.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the whole craze with vintage receivers is more visual than audible. The ones I've come across have never sounded as good as they look.

Vintage receivers, tubes, vinyl... its one huge generation nostalgia cruise. If you feel out of place you are most likely younger than 45 y/o.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the whole craze with vintage receivers is more visual than audible.

Now we're cooking with gas. :thmbsp:

Music's more magical when you have to wonder how the geriatric electronics behind it are still working. :scratch2:

People rationalize it, say that vintage gear is easier to fix. If I value my time, the Sanyo I'm in the middle of is probably a $2000 still-not-working-yet receiver. That's OK, it looks like a million bucks.
 
***

Yes I'll agree that the "look" of the vintage gear is at least half the appeal (for me anyway).
I really like the "cool" factor as I'm a very visual person. I just got some KLH speakers
from around 1969 and to me they sound like ass - nothing like what I was expecting.
But I cleaned them up an "reconditioned" the wood anyway. I love them - they seem "real"
or something... I don't know.

***
 
While I expressed my opinion I'm not here to argue with other folk's rationalizations of it either.
 
***

Quick sidebar - speaking of MOG... do any of you ever experience MOG just stopping... for no reason? I'm figuring it's buffering or something but it's very annoying.

***

Back on topic - I'm not convinced that Bose are as crap as most here say they are...
I don't own any - but have heard them and never understood the backlash.

***
 
***

Yes I'll agree that the "look" of the vintage gear is at least half the appeal (for me anyway).
I really like the "cool" factor as I'm a very visual person. I just got some KLH speakers
from around 1969 and to me they sound like ass - nothing like what I was expecting.
But I cleaned them up an "reconditioned" the wood anyway. I love them - they seem "real"
or something... I don't know.

***

We're getting at a deeper truth here.

It's OK to be into audio for something other than the audio.
 
There are far more commonly-held viewpoints I disagree with than those I do agree with. This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me. No need to go into specifics.
 
I am not sure what the widely held AK views are?
If someone could point some of them out to me it would be helpful. :confused:

From my experience reading many of the posts and polls on the forum, and coversing in the chat room , the crowd is a melting pot. :)
 
I am not sure what the widely held AK views are?

I was thinking of the bias toward vintage gear and the bias against Bose.

AK is a level-headed place, most of the advice here is excellent. Don't solder while wearing shorts. Discharge capacitors. Use a variac AND a dim-bulb tester. Get the dog or cat in the frame when you post a pic of your system :yes:
 
Back
Top Bottom