Scott Dolan

iTunes won't recognize FLAC. I have Out To Lunch from HDTracks in ALAC and it plays just fine. Either way, iTunes is such a mess I would never recommend it. It's just odd how WMP handles FLAC.

Larry wants a woman that fights back. This is getting kinky...

Biggest fall from grace ever?

Biggest fall from grace ever?

That is very bizarre. I wonder if it's some kind of glitch in the media player? I don't have either problem n iTunes...

For ripping to your computer I highly suggest FLAC/ALAC. Codecs have improved dramatically over the last decade, so who knows what the future holds? Might as well hedge your bet and have the lossless file, then you can make a copy in any format you wish. They'll be a little bigger than 320kbps files, but much smaller than a .wav file.

Yeah, I completely missed that second post. A little new software trickery... Near field monitoring is just like what you see them doing in recording studios. It just means that you're close to the source, and making an equilateral triangle with your head and the two speakers. It's perfect for small rooms, apartments, that kind of thing. I used to have mine set up in front of my computer desk in a 9'x10' room. That's where I did my serious listening. And $3200 for a set of speakers is anything but "at the beginning" of the audiophile market. That's pretty close to right in the heart of it. I'm also like you, I use zero processing for my music. Stereo direct only, no tone controls, no EQ. Unless you have a really cheap and crappy amp/receiver, there's really no need for signal processing. The only downside is when it comes to headphones, since most of the less expensive amps/receivers have really garbage headphone jacks. My old Harman Kardon was a beautiful sounding receiver, but the headphone output was absolutely abysmal. That's why I still use a dedicated headphone amp to this day. I firmly believe that a headphone amp and a DAC (if your amp/receiver is more than 7-10 years old) are the two most vital components to any rig outside of speakers.

CJ, Polk Audio makes some of the most underrated speakers on the market. I still have my RT25i as the surrounds on my main system, and my R50 mains with R10 surrounds on our game room system. I'm not sure there is a better bang for the buck speaker than the under $500pr Polk Audio line. They fall behind the market leaders above $500, but their budget-minded speakers are heads and shoulders above most of their competitors, IMO. As for the R10's, they're no different than pretty much every bookshelf speaker out there: if you want decent bass response, you're going to need to mate them to a sub. Unless you're usng them in a near field setup. I used to use my RT25i's to monitor near field. And I thought they sounded superb! Haven't tried that with the R10's, though. Though, I do find it curious that your friend prefers a lot of bass in his music, yet decided to go with electrostats. Martin Logan builds wondrful speakers, some of the best on the market, bar none, but bass isn't really their strongest suit. But, he will certainly get a nice, clean, and clear representation of his music across the frequency spectrum. I came vey close to buying a pair of Martin Logans when I did my rebuild last year (though nothing as expensive as what your buddy is looking at), but concluded that the size and dynamics (setup) of my living room just wasn't conducive for that type of speaker. They are incredible, though. AKG just builds such rock solid equipment. I've never heard those, but from mics to headphones, AKG quality is almost without peer.

That's a really interesting take, neils. I guess I would have to consider myself more of an "album" person as well. I wonder if that plays into revisiting box sets far less often than returning to individual albums. Something that seems to plague a lot of people. That possibility never really struck me until reading your post. Perhaps I've simply been "doing it wrong" all of these years, and nevr even knew it. Of course, now it's a million times easier since most software allows for playlists.

I'd say from videos I've seen of him late in life, B.B. King seemed to have lost a lot of his ability to play.

My personal thought is that it would be more important to those who had the original albums. I never had them, so the chronological order of the discs in the box set work just fine for me. Plus, I think chronological order simply makes more sense. Seems that you can hear ideas flow a little better. As for resurrecting this thread, I certainly see no issue with it. Makes more sense than starting a new one only to have someone post a link to this thread. Though, most folks here likely wouldn't have cared either way. Either way, welcome to the board! I know a pretty fair share about Jazz, but most here know ten times more, and are more than willing to share that knowledge with you. Stick around, have fun, and keep a close eye on your bank account. ;)

Glad to hear that, CJ. You know you've moved into a high quality realm of audio when an EQ is no longer necessary to get the sound you're looking for, but also no longer wanted, period. I still have an old ten band Optimus EQ in my closet that I purchased a quarter of a century ago. Was my best audio friend for so long that I simply cannot part with him. And while I am thoroughly happy with my PSB Speakers cans, I have to admit I'm REALLY intrigued by all the positive things you cats have been saying about your Audio Technica's. I hope I get a chance to hear some myself one of these days. I also agree with you concerning a "flat response". That's the one thing that makes my PSB's such superstars to my ears. I can take every last set of headphones and earbuds that I own, or have owned, and tell you what their weakness is. Boosted bass, cut treble, flat/lifeless midrange... But with these, I can find no weakness.

Not to mention that Grados tend to be uncomfortable as hell. I've never been a fan of on ear headphones. The entire concept seems wacky.

All hail market forces!

If I had a nickel for every time you have publicly stated you were putting me on ignore or no longer replying to my posts, I could put together the highest end Decware system they could build for me. It's a dramatic presentation, I suppose, but why not just do it?

And there is the answer to my question. Oops... BTW, you "figured someone was going to tell" you your headphones were expensive if you didn't mention it? That's odd. In that same thread someone posted about their set of Audeze which probably cost close to twice what you paid for your cans. I didn't see anybody jumping them about it.

Britney Spears massively out sold The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in late 90's/early 2000s. In the grand scheme that doesn't mean much of anything. I had a massive collections of cassettes in the 80's, that doesn't mean they were a superior medium. They weren't. They just happened to sell better at the time.

Right on the money. Maxell did have some pretty sturdy blank tapes. What was their big boy, the XL-II, or something like that? But yes, the pre-recorded stuff was very dubious in quality. And as I noted previously, they started degrading from the first play through. In the 80's it wasn't uncommon for me to end up with at least three copies of any given album I listened to frequently. The best practice was to buy an album on cassette and then dub it to a blank of your choice. Some folks swore by TDK and Memorex, but Maxell ate them both for lunch, IMO.

I'm not entirely sure you could say which was worse, as they were both pretty bad sound quality-wise. Cassettes were slightly easier to navigate...

Fair enough. So tell me, you have always been completely dead set against headphones. You gone on, at length, as to how much you disliked them. Yet, you recently bought a pair because they would be advantageous in your living situation. That's great! But then you listed what you got, and made sure to also add that they were expensive. Well, yes, there were. Around $1,000. Again, fair enough. But you claimed the sound of them fit you. So how many headphones did you audition before you chose the pair you bought? It's a recurring theme with you. "well, it was kind of expensive, but it best suited my tastes/ears/whatever." I think Shawn posted a pair of Audio Technica cans that go for around $50 and talked about how great they sound for the money. Jim A talked about his THREE sets of Audio Technica cans that run around $350. Others posted their headphones, almost all of which were far cheaper. Including my PSB Speakers cans. Did you test any of those? Here's my point: it just seems bizarre to me that someone who has professed such a profound disdain for headphones throughout the years would suddenly run out and blow a grand on a pair. And then make sure to ell everyone that they were rather expensive, but... Was it the sound that fit you, or the price tag?

Sure, it depends on what you were switching between, though. For example, if you have a 50ft run and were previously using 16AWG and switched to 14 or 12 AWG you would indeed hear a difference. But, if you're just simply switching between one set of 12AWG for another set of 12AWG and heard a difference it was one of two possibilities. 1. There was something faulty with the previous set of wires, or 2. you went in with an expectation bias that the new set was going to sound different/better. Now, with that said, if the new wires sounded better to your ears, good. Where the problem occurs is when snake oil dealers try to sell you some bullshit about their $100 per ft cables possess some kind of magical capabilities that will transform everything you thought you heard before, blah, blah, blah...

It's like a Christian admonishing me for not believing in God. You can believe anything you like. I'll stick with science and facts. I'll also adhere to the law of dinishing returns over the belief that the more money I throw at it, the better it will sound.

I could have used a few of those last night, Art. I had just walked upstairs to go to bed when the tornado sirens started blaring. Ugh…trudge back down to the basement and wait for the all clear. But the thunder kept me awake for some time after that.

That still doesn't mean cassettes were any great shakes, though. The car stereo, which many models were coming standard with cassette players from the factory by the mid-80's, the rise of portable stereo's, and that wonderful little invention from Sony made the cassette the desired medium. But, truth be told, they sounded pretty bad, and the best sound quality you got was on the very first play through. And they degraded quickly after that. But yes, the portability factor negated most of its flaws.