|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-02-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d This is an interesting subject that fascinates me recently. I have
a listening room with pretty good playback custom-build for it. All together it
produces a fine result and perfectly complies with general objectives of
high-end audio. For a last few years I do not involved in a lot of action with
my playback. It is more or less matured and all the I do is juts turn playback
on, palsy music and do some occasional calibrations, adjustment of bias, change
tubes and so on, more maintenance then developed tasks. The
introduction of new PP+ last year still goes with maintenance. The character of
sound of my playback is the very same for years and I pretty content with it.
Earlier this year I was experimented with bringing sound to deck
and discover that if drive Bose SoundDock not from MP3 file but via a cable
from headphone outlet of my preamp then I get very acceptable sound for casual
listening. It kind of ridicules to have a super-duper performing front- end and
drive it to Bose SoundDock but I do and I am fine with it.
Lately I begin to observe an interesting phenomena. When I want to
do non-critical music listening, not on deck, in spa or on pool but in my
listening room then more and more often I do not run of via Macondo but use the
Bose boom-box. It is not a competition of sound quality of cause but rather a
feeling of balance how much efforts I want to spend for what kind level of
satisfaction. It is not to mention that from my quite advanced and acquired
taste the sonic result I’m getting from the boom-box is more interesting than
95% of “unintelligent” super-duper Hi-Fi installation out there.
I do have my MiniMe pilot system about which I written in past and
that meant to run when I do not want to burn Milq tubes, however, the stinky
Bose radio very substantially over perform them. In addition Bose is
self-powered – very convenient…
So, the question is: how much quality do we need, particularly
considering the majority of our recordings are severely compromised by barbaric
editing?
I do not advocate the lowering our demands in sound reproduction.
All that I am doing is observing the tendency of a person who does have very
high reference points in sound reproduction and does have a well performing
playback available for him. So, what is it? Is it some kind of changes in me or
it is some kind of “false flag” in the whole high-end audio idea?
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-02-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d For me it is mostly that I have to be more or less "up" to deal with, tune into and listen to serious music via my hi-fi, and I am not always up for it. Having been conscious of this conundrum for some time, I have over the years taken steps to tune the sound so it will also do something acceptable at closer to background levels, when I want that. Funny, but even with the volume turned down for background levels the electricity is an audible element, and even my hi-fi-indifferent wife will complain of the sound played even at low volumes when the power is especially bad.
As far as the high-end audio idea, if by this we mean acquire certain equipment, and pay more for better sound, then this idea was stillborn. Any doubters, go to a high-end audio show. While there are certainly better and worse systems, it is personal, is it not, including situational. The car is a great example of this: sometimes I get wrapped up in music over that miserable system; other times I can barely stand the sound from Prairie Home Companion or Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me. (And this one is powered from a big battery!)
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
08-03-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I personally think that the legacy of Amar Bose was discovering how many "needs big box" factors could be left out and still have the products perceived at "of high quality". Bose is very popular with musicians, for all of the sonic shortcomings it still lets the information that they are looking for through. Perhaps only their logo should be modified: "Good enough music through research" seems to represent more of the truth.
Romy, I think in your case playback with MiniMe leaves you with the idea still in the back of your mind - I am not using Macondo. That is in the way of listening. When you listen to the Bose dock, this most likely does not occur. New UseCase, different parameters, no ballast in the back of your mind. Ability to focus on other things.
21st century convenience is addictive however - not only in the playback world.............. The reduction of data allows playback to be in the background if desirable. Does the respect for the composers, musicians, conductors intentions change outdoors? Does audio become a commodity? The answer "depends" is certainly easier to apply from the deck or pool than in the listening room.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-03-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Many years ago, Peter Moncrieff (of IAR fame) built some Bose-like, multi-driver speakers, and some of the drivers "pointed away". These were heard and hailed by no less than Numero Uno Audio Guru, JG Holt. I never heard these speakers, but I have played around a lot with and integrated the notion of "bounced sound" into my audio system. Of course, the super-small, super-portable versions of the original ideas, along with the plastic tunnels, etc., are ridiculous. Neither are the Bose portables "cheap" for what they are, but they charge more, re-allocated some of the $$, and push them harder, in "fancy" magazines, like the New Yorker, etc. I would say, sonically acceptable boom boxes are where you find them; no "name" has a lock on these things, and one "good" model is no indication that there will be "good" models to follow from a given marque. I've bought these things for my kids, over the years, and I've bought a couple for myself, for work. Like car audio, you have to pick them by ear; you can't count on "brand shopping" for this stuff. In the small sizes, I think all the "theories" are out the window. Hard to say why some sound acceptable, and most just don't, regardless of company "history" or claims.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by noviygera on
08-03-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Could it be that the SoundDock gets the basics of sound reproduction right? And if the basics are attained without fussing around (and it matches your values of basics) then why trick yourself to search a better rightness. For me, it's the search for this "rightness" in sound that is difficult, misleading (by my own self), and confusing. You are lucky that you have found it. What is the basic rightness in sound? How does it sound?
Gera
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-04-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  noviygera wrote: | | Could it be that the SoundDock gets the basics of sound reproduction right? And if the basics are attained without fussing around (and it matches your values of basics) then why trick yourself to search a better rightness. For me, it's the search for this "rightness" in sound that is difficult, misleading (by my own self), and confusing. You are lucky that you have found it. What is the basic rightness in sound? How does it sound? |
|
Gera, I think you miss the point of this thread. I did not state that SoundDock gets the basics of sound reproduction right. I did write in past the many thing that SoundDock is fact is not right, even though it has some very pleasant characteristics as well. The point of this thered was not to review of SoundDock soind but rather to note that despite of all problem that I clearly see in SoundDock I do find myself frequently gravitating toward to that none-perfect sound during my non-critical listening and particularly of compromised sources. I do not think that SoundDock might be an answer to "better rightness", at least for me. However, it is very convenient tool to play music. The initial post was more about me then about SoundDock device.
Rgs, Romy the Cat
|
|