Apart from going to Argos and buying the one with the most buttons....

[Ariosto]

and let me guess, Steve and Geoff your mates from down the Dog and Duck
You seem to be cross because you have bought some things that later you regretted ............. so enlighten us WHO does make things worth listening to ?

I can't take you seriously anymore, but Dav Electronics, Royer microphones (American) amongst others. Velodyne (US).

This is such a futile conversation as you have obviously blocked not only your ears but your mind as well.

So I won't be answering any more of your posts.

[MrGongGong]

I can't take you seriously anymore, but Dav Electronics, Royer microphones (American) amongst others. Velodyne (US).

This is such a futile conversation as you have obviously blocked not only your ears but your mind as well.

So I won't be answering any more of your posts.

I was (almost seriously) wondering on what experience your strong opinions were based ?

I spent a day this week in a studio editing an orchestral recording using a mixture of ATC's and Genelecs for monitoring, personally I find the ATC's a bit harsh for extended listening BUT they are extraordinarily clean and accurate.

[Pianorak]

My Teleton audio separates (teamed up with big Wharfdale speakers) bought in the seventies is still working (except for the turntable belt). Must be a collectors item by now. The only way is Essex!

[cloughie]

My Teleton audio separates (teamed up with big Wharfdale speakers) bought in the seventies is still working (except for the turntable belt). Must be a collectors item by now. The only way is Essex!

Was it an SAQ203, Garrard SP25 and I think an entry level Shure cartridge? I put together my speakers from pludering old radiograms!

[Pianorak]

Was it an SAQ203, Garrard SP25 and I think an entry level Shure cartridge? I put together my speakers from pludering old radiograms!

't was a Teleton trp200W Stereo Record Player - Not sure which cartridge (obviously been replaced).

[jayne lee wilson]

If you want decent sound then don't buy anything British. (The exception is one or two fine small companies that build equipment in their back rooms).

Miss out anything that says it's from Cambridge, as most of this Hi Fi equipment is rubbish. (Cyrus, Arcam and all that lot of overpriced junk).

Some American and Japanese equipment can be excellent, but get rid of most of the speakers you see around, and use medium quality headphones. Then you will hopefully get the real sound. The rest is cotton wool.

I often wonder why people express themselves with such extreme statements. It will never convince, because it offers no argument, and you will only alienate those who have enjoyed such equipment by suggesting that you have privileged access to a secret truth, and we should just accept what you say. The lack of detail is telling.

I was pretty much in love with the Arcam Alpha 9 CD (1999), and the CD23t (2001) was lovelier still. Lived with them for years, whilst happily attending live RLPO concerts (which didn't put me off the system). Why go further? Well, sometimes you see a mountain and think, wonder what's it like on the top...

My current system includes older Japanese and American equipment (Marantz, Krell) French Canadian (Magnum Dynalab) and British (ATC, Harbeth, and my oft-mentioned upgraded Cambridge DacMagic). They all get on pretty well together, a mix of older modified designs and the more recent digital processor. As I've said on Techie, Computer Music has driven huge price/performance improvements in DACs recently.

[Ariosto]

I was (almost seriously) wondering on what experience your strong opinions were based ?

I spent a day this week in a studio editing an orchestral recording using a mixture of ATC's and Genelecs for monitoring, personally I find the ATC's a bit harsh for extended listening BUT they are extraordinarily clean and accurate.

I almost always use headphones for monitoring and editing these days. I find speakers are too unreliable as they all have their own individual sound, and with pin accuracy editing you need the immediacy and accuracy of headphones. The Royer ribbon mics impart a really special sound to strings and piano, but listening with speakers inevitably adds sounds that are to do with a combination of the speakers own sound and the room sound which even in "proper" control rooms still manages to colour and smudge the sound far to much, especially for editing purposes.

I've just spent countless hours auditioning mics both in a studio and here at home and comparing the sound files. There can be quite a difference even when comparing quite expensive mics, and the difference imparted by the technology, for instance condenser mics against ribbon against dynamics is quite revealing. For my particular needs I am now turning towards ribbon mics, and I'm afraid and sorry to say that none of them are British. But I do use a British made mic pre-amp which is extremely good.

[Ariosto]

I often wonder why people express themselves with such extreme statements. It will never convince, because it offers no argument, and you will only alienate those who have enjoyed such equipment by suggesting that you have privileged access to a secret truth, and we should just accept what you say. The lack of detail is telling.

I was pretty much in love with the Arcam Alpha 9 CD (1999), and the CD23t (2001) was lovelier still. Lived with them for years, whilst happily attending live RLPO concerts (which didn't put me off the system). Why go further? Well, sometimes you see a mountain and think, wonder what's it like on the top...

My current system includes older Japanese and American equipment (Marantz, Krell) French Canadian (Magnum Dynalab) and British (ATC, Harbeth, and my oft-mentioned upgraded Cambridge DacMagic). They all get on pretty well together, a mix of older modified designs and the more recent digital processor. As I've said on Techie, Computer Music has driven huge price/performance improvements in DACs recently.

Far from wishing to alienate anyone who already may have the equipment I don't like (as I have myself), I'm just putting forward an opinion which you can take or leave. I must admit that I have an opinion about Hi-Fi that most people will object to in as much as I think there is a lot of absolute rubbish written and spoken concerning this subject, present company excepted of course!

If a person is happy with their equipment that is fine. But that should not prevent me or anyone else from making critical statements which may appear to be generalised but in fact (although not 100% true as I've pointed out) do show a generalised trend. Whilst there may be exceptions, a lot (in my opinion) of recent (last 15 years or so) British equipment that I hear or audition does sound like it has been designed to sound like it's playing through three feet of cotton wool.

If I could stretch this a bit and say that this morning I was helping someone choose a fiddle, and the instrument he brought to show me was quite nice and OK (except the price was far too high) - but it still had that slightly sleepy sound you get fron an instrument that may sound OK under the ear but which won't wake anyone up in the back row. He doesn't want to play in large concert halls so will probably be satisfied, except that when I played my instrument against his it did show him that was a big difference. It was also a case that he just does not have the experience to really judge instruments because he is not prepared to test them to the limits. I've sent him to someone good who deals in instruments and I hope he will be guided. He wants to buy three violins (not sure why) and particularly an Italian one, plus a cello for his daughter, and some of them here and/or in Italy before he goes back home to the US.

So there is a connection with instruments and Hi-Fi and of course recording equipment including mics, pre-amps, and other things. It all comes down to sound in the end and musicians often have cavalier attitudes to the sound that comes out of a recording. How many times have I heard musicians (not always fairly) rubbish a recording take that has just been played back in the control room. I would say musicians often have a different concept to recording engineers and producers, and different again from members of the public.

Incidently, I was introduced or rather recommended to headphone listening about 11 years ago when I was producing a CD and the producer/engineer (who was a friend of mine) suggested I listen to the recording taking place through cans - and I have since taken his advice a lot and do most of my tracking, editing etc with cans. I can do it a t 3.00am too and not disturb the neighbours or the young lady in the bedroom ...

[MrGongGong]

I almost always use headphones for monitoring and editing these days..

aaah but WHICH ones ?
for many years I used AKGK401's (children sleeping etc )
which are fairly neutral and not too uncomfortable on the ears
but for editing (rather than mixing or mastering) I tend to use DT250's

but again it ALL depends on what kind of things you are doing, there's no point mixing something that is to be played on a multichannel diffusion system on a pair of cheap cans !

the most critical electroacoustic folk seem to prefer ATC's and Genelecs

there is a law of diminishing returns and there is a load of nonsense about oxygen free copper and homeopathic cables BUT I wouldn't say no to a pair of these

[Ariosto]

ATC's may look great and sound better than most but they are still loudspeaker technology that hasn't changed much in 80 years.

I use Sennhieser and Beyer cans at home and various others elswhere. In the end I tend to compare live sound with what I hear being recorded - and I don't mix very much as most of the things I do are small ensembles, solo to five or six performers, and often with a stereo pair and sometimes with one spot mic. I'm trying to get the natural sound rather than precessed sound, which I find in most cases degrades the quality.

I'm not interested in orchestral recording although I have done it once or twice, but in chamber and solo music.

[MrGongGong]

ATC's may look great and sound better than most but they are still loudspeaker technology that hasn't changed much in 80 years.
.

but they are British ?
and have your ears changed ? Mine are more or less intact (unlike some who seem to like to listen to stuff on earbuds at 120db)

[Ariosto]

but they are British ?
and have your ears changed ? Mine are more or less intact (unlike some who seem to like to listen to stuff on earbuds at 120db)

I've no idea, they are just speakers to me. But if you want to sell I could go up to a fiver for them ... My ears are just fine, I never listen at high levels anyway, and I normally do not spend that much time listening to takes and editing them.

[Bryn]

Cans can be very useful when editing when it comes to pin-point cutting, pasting, etc. (as can the eyes when working at wave level), but they are hopeless when it comes to assessing and adjusting stereo imagery. For that, decent monitor speakers (preferably of UK design and manufacture) are the only real option unless one is aiming strictly for binaural playback (which does make a fair bit of sense these days, given the preponderance of head/earphone use). However, I for one do not like listening via cans if even merely reasonable speakers are an option.

[Ariosto]

Cans can be very useful when editing when it comes to pin-point cutting, pasting, etc. (as can the eyes when working at wave level), but they are hopeless when it comes to assessing and adjusting stereo imagery. For that, decent monitor speakers (preferably of UK design and manufacture) are the only real option unless one is aiming strictly for binaural playback (which does make a fair bit of sense these days, given the preponderance of head/earphone use). However, I for one do not like listening via cans if even merely reasonable speakers are an option.

Whilst I agree with you, setting the stereo imagery is done either when recording or adjusted when listening to the first take. After that it's set and you can edit on cans. (Uless using MS mic set up where you can have more ajustments later in post production, although even here a special amp can be used to set it whilst tracking).

But of course speakers have their uses, cans can get a bit hot, and if I'm just listening to the usual rubbish on R3 then I'm moving about the room/house then cans are no good at all.

But I often hear a CD on cans after I've heard it on speakers and although my speakers are OK even though they are British rubbish (Oh, maybe there not, as I think they were taken over by some far east outfit) - I'm then amazed how much better the sound is, with more clarity, definition, and articulation. And balance seems better too. Maybe though I'm living in cloud cuckoo land and I'm imagining it all. I'm sure Mr GG will agree that must be the case ...

[Stephen Smith]

Can I suggest potential buyers consider AVI speakers - Gloucestershire based manufacturer of active speakers (active as used in studios).
For £1250 you get a pair of speakers with powerful onboard amplifiers, and a high quality DAC. All you need to connect are your sources - preferably by optical cable, but a facility for analogue. Also, because of a new model, owners of the ADM 9 standmounted speakers are upgrading and they are on occasion available secondhand.

http://www.avihifi.co.uk/store.html

Also there is the HDD forum

http://hddaudio.net/

Their speakers are excellent value, clear and powerful and can be audtioned at Bartletts in London or Five Ways Hi Fidelity in Birmimgham (or factory visits are welcomed). I have their speakers and they are clear and powerful. There was a "GRramophone" review a couple of years ago, and others.
Worth considering if you are prone to upgrade-itis aka box swapping (something I largely resisted and is now completely behind me.
Stephen