Classical Music Mayhem!!

Next I'll be showing you how to make some nifty napkin holders out of used aluminum cans!

When I was in college we used aluminum cans for something much different than napkin holders

Well, well. I really must get around to visiting and posting in this forum more often -- it seems a nice place.

On this occassion, in lieu of saying anything intelligent, I'm just going to post the following diagram of my stereo system ...



Nowadays I listen 95% to computer playback. I have 700+ CDs ripped to FLAC or ALAC (Apple Lossless) formats.

That is a very serious set-up! I congratulate you! This must sound, simply, stunning.

A good idea.


Seems a substantial set up, I just hope you have high quality cables! I listen to music most of the time too and from work on my audio player, on the rare occasion I have opportunity for home listening my humble hi-fi is enough.

A very elaborate setup you have there, Feanor! I don't think I understand half of it...

[hr]
My old Philips cans are suffering from BWS (Bent Wire Syndrome) and are beginning to cut out. I may need to get some new ones; any suggestions? I know TMT has some Beyerdynamics headphones he recommends.

As for my little Bose buds, they're going strong. Their unique design allows for a deep and broad sound that is quite impressive. I'm quite happy.

Do you use Monster cables, TMT?

I have some Ixos and Cambridge Audio cables on my hi-fi.

This is an interesting thread, and it would seem to disprove my adage that there is an inverse correlation between the the quality of the music one listens to and the quality (or at least the cost) of one's sound system. Despite that many of the above posts mention high-end equipment, and despite that I keep squandering my meager income on audiophile-grade equipment, I still stand by this as a general axiom.

This is especially true of classical music votaries, who tend to be of a conservative kidney, and they are generally suspicious of technology and, for that matter, progress in general. This explains why a large portion of the classical audience prefers analog recordings, and of that portion, most prefer LPs (despite their limited frequency range and ghastly surface noise), and for the most discriminating classical zealots, even LPs are too newfangled, and they listen only to vintage recordings, the older the better; the theory being that the older the performance is, the closer it is in time to the creation of the music, and hence, it is more "authentic." (This also explains why there are so few new classical recordings released each year.)

But you guys (I don't frequent this site, but I have yet to see a female participant), are hardly genuine classical votaries. Most classical music aficionados sneer at computers, and the very thought of listening to classical music through a computer is blasphemy. Any discerning classical music devotee can hear that an MP3 file of one of their sacred relics is so vitiated and debased as to be unlistenable. (If, of course, you first tell them that it's an MP3 file.)

Well you raise some interesting points invictus. I agree about the general conservatism of your average CM fan, I think this is well known, however here at CMM we have the voice of reason and pragmatism amongst its ranks! For 'proper' listening I only use my CD player, so in that respect one could say i am a traditionalist of sorts, but 99% of my music listening is on the move, so without such portable technology I'd have barely any time to listen to music.

There are female contributors here, if you look around enough, but yes males are in the distinct majority as with every other CM forum. There is no anti-female policy or behaviour here however, the membership simply consists of those who a) find the site and b) are prepared to join. If it so happens there are more guys or more women I don't really care.

I must add at once that for the Invictus Axiom to be true, it must follow that the obverse of the coin should be equally valid; that is to say not only are classical purists generally indifferent or even hostile to the latest in sound technology (they are, in modern parlance, "late adapters"), the audiophiles correspondingly have no interest in classical music.

Visit any high-end audio shop, and are you likely to hear Bach or Mahler coming from the extravagantly-priced equipment? Most assuredly not! No, it's not so bad that you will be hearing the latest offerings from the cretins at Geffen Records or slut-of-the-year Amy Winehouse (who replaced Jessica Simpson as SOTY, who replaced Britney Spears as SOTY, who replaced Madonna as . . . you get the idea), but the music of choice there might be some acoustic pop group or at best a jazz combo playing banal arrangements of Gershwin standards. And here, I'll give a plug to my favorite audio emporium, Ontario's Audio Two, where the proprietor has both an encyclopedic knowledge of what components are available and a working understanding of the electronics and mechanisms inside the box. And he sells cheap. The last time I visited his shop, he was playing the Canadian all-girl folk group, The Wailin' Jennys (whose music I admire), and I noticed that he had no classical CDs in his rack.

Some years ago, I decided to squander beaucoup d'argent on *the ultimate sub-woofer*, and I made the rounds of my area's audio cognoscenti. The local dealer for an exorbitantly-priced line of speakers (I shan't mention the brand, but they are famous for their 2-meter-tall column speakers) had a showroom in a large addition to his home in the distant suburbs, and the CD I took with me as a test recording was Michael Murray playing the Poulenc "Concerto for Organ, Timpani and Strings." There must've been at least £200000 worth of components in the room, and before playing my CD, he wanted to warm-up his system with a CD of his own choosing. What music do you suppose he selected to show off the Emperor's New Stereo? Did he have some futuristic, synthesized recording with even more frightening bass?

No. When he dropped a CD into his turntable (he dropped it in because it did not load through a tray, but a hole on the top of the unit spiraled open like a door in a science-fiction movie, and it was a turntable, not a player, because it was connected to a separate D/A convertor) it turned out to be Roger Miller's 1965 hit (Number One on the charts), "King of the Road" (which was likely recorded on monaural tape and engineered for optimal sound on a juke box or car radio).

In my previous post, I ridiculed the cabal of classical purists who consider vintage (i.e., scratchy, lo-fi) recordings (especially those acoustically recorded -- sung into a big horn, with no electronic taint whatsoever) to be more "authentic." I disagree with this sentiment because I think that the great music is immortal, not limited to any time or place, and I also enjoy synthesized versions of the classics. But how more idiotic it is to spend many thousands to hear pop music reproduced in a pristine state? If you want to hear the 32' contra pipe of the Great Organ at Liverpool Cathedral in your home, or the violins playing harmonics in the finale of La Mer, you'll need to spend some money on equipment that can reproduce these sounds. But why would anyone spend thousands so that they can hear the sibilance of some pop group's cymbals?

How ironic it is, then, that the classical listeners who need the high-performance audio equipment don't want it, and the owners of this same equipment don't need it.

A plague on both their houses.

Interesting thoughts there invictus. Firstly, am I right in thinking your avatar is by the hallowed hands of Beksinski? I always got the feeling that for the true audiophile it wouldn't be enough to actually have the players in the room with them. The music itself takes a back seat to the science of reproduction which gravitates towards the preternatural qualities of the extremes of recorded sound. A classical recording seeks (ideally) to simulate the real thing where conversely in the case of much modern music the real thing is but a shadow of the recording. I have some sympathy with the old-guard listeners who are trying to inhale the ambiance of the decrepit recordings- that is a romanticism of its own. For myself I still stick by my old adage that there is no stereo in the world that cannot be perfected by the correct quantities of intoxicating substances. But they don't talk about that in the audio guides for the most part. Which wine elucidates Liszt?. Which cigarettes transform Chopin? To me these are the essential issues!

I could never be an audiophile.

A.) I just don't care enough about the equipment.
B.) My ears simply aren't that good. I've done multiple blind tests, and have discovered that I can barely tel the difference between a file ripped at 192 (or V2 as I prefer to do it), and lossless (i.e. the equivalent of your CD). Since my ears aren't good enough to spot the difference I know they wouldn't be good enough to hear the difference between a mid-range and a high-range speaker system.

Besides, I've always felt that you get more bang for your buck if you invest in top-quality headphone and an amp to drive them if needed.

I could easily be an audiophile. I would love to be able to spend thousands on equipment. Personally I get into speaker placement, sitting position, and pulling out the DB meter. Tweaking everything I can, until M3 sounds just how I like it. What I find, even when you don't have an audiophile quality system, that sounds begins to take on a 3 dimensional quality, you get depth. You can tell the trumpets are back and to the right. You can sometimes even hear the wind players breathe. I love it. I can't wait until I can afford something more.

Mel, I've got agree with you. Intoxicants and music a truly a wonder.

Invictus' points are interesting. But, so few people listen to classical music that it's no wonder at the stereo shop they throw in some pop. And it's no wonder that lovers of CM don't spend thousands on equipment. Most I know spend thousands on recordings instead. CM listeners I know personally tend to have better equipment that most of the population. It may not cost thousands, but it's better than most people have.

Some interesting points above. I've never been terribly thrilled about spending hoards of money on audio equipment; sure, some speakers are better than others, but I like to think that the music you're hearing is the music you're hearing.

As far as the usual classical music listeners go, I've always been of the impression that the true purists refuse to listen to any sort of recordings: live performances only!