Jump to content

Grant Slack

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Above Average

About Grant Slack

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, I am sure I am not the only one who polled 🥇 because my system produces very satisfying sound, but not because I have no interest in changing anything. Sometimes I like to change just for the change. And sometimes I want to try different things as an exploration -- being a hobbyist, and this being my hobby. Regards Grant
  2. ...or he could buy an old Marantz if he wants the USA sound... ...but that might be making a rod for his own back...
  3. Grant Slack

    Rega P8

    According to the Rega website P6 is 5.2 kg, PSU 0.6 kg. P3 is 6 kg, p5 is not listed, p7 is not listed. P8 is 4.2 kg, PSU 0.6 kg.
  4. Grant Slack

    Rega P8

    Hello, thanks for bringing this interesting development to my attention. I get the impression that the P8 is not an update of the RP8, but, instead, it is a completely new design from the ground up. Rega say their intention was to make a very large jump in performance. This makes it very difficult to make a valid side-by-side comparison of features, as you have attempted. If the performance has indeed stepped up substantially, at a similar price point, then it does not matter much how they did it. For example, PUR foam is still a benchmark core material for high-performance laminates, regardless of price, and the new approach enables a 30% lighter yet more rigid plinth than before with the olefin core of the RP8, which certainly opens the door for higher performance. Whether they delivered on that potential, is an engineering matter. Of course, I sympathise with your approach. Rega joins the vast majority, in not publishing serious performance data, making an initial assessment of a turntable from a distance all the more difficult. Regards Grant
  5. Grant Slack

    Best passive studio monitors for under 1k

    Yeh thats exactly what i am looking for. Something bigger with more low end and i would use them for mastering purposes. .... Hello, I now understand your purpose properly. I suppose that explains why you kept asking for 3-way recommendations. Perhaps the $1,000 limit is the factor here, that prevents you from getting answers. 3-way speakers are generally more expensive than 2-way, but, in particular, good quality bass is invariably more expensive. The only 3-way passive monitor that I am aware of, and mentioned previously, is well over your limit. Regards Grant
  6. Grant Slack

    EOI: GTG at The Coates Cellar Door

    Interested, pending social scheduling. Thank you for this offer. Regards Grant
  7. Hello, this is fascinating. Can someone tell me, without doing any internet searching to find the answer, where one can buy brand new cassettes today?
  8. Grant Slack

    Late night in Glenelg... My God

    "If you know where to go..." 😎 I live 10 minutes away and I don't know where to go 😂 But one look at my old codger face and I know what happens next, so, no loss! Enjoy your night out, sir. Right now I'm playing Boogie On Reggae Woman, and the closeout harmonica is at a clean and cutting volume that suits me perfectly. I like my home 🙃 Regards Grant
  9. Grant Slack

    Best passive studio monitors for under 1k

    Hello again, and thank you for your reply, and also for clarifying your intended usage with the new speakers. Dr. Toole discussed both the early and late versions of the NS10M in his book. I am not sure that he thinks the later model was an improvement. He actually describes it as "even more like the (1980) Auratone 5C than the original model". I get the impression that Dr. Toole regards it as regrettable that the industry adopted the NS10M as a de facto standard, instead of something with a flatter and more extended on-axis frequency response, such as the JBL 4301. But, ever thankful for small mercies, he is grateful that a de facto standard monitor speaker was adopted, which is better than having no consistency. Regards Grant
  10. Grant Slack

    Best passive studio monitors for under 1k

    Hello, I found your post above quite intriguing. May I clarify exactly what you are going to be using these new speakers for? Is it for a mixing desk? Or is it for some type of playback listening of completed recordings? Because my understanding is that the NS10M is quite poor for playback purposes. Floyd Toole has written on its history, and describes it as "originally intended to be listened to at a distance in a normally reflective room". i.e. on the walls of the mixing studio, well back from the desk. It relies on bass boost from the adjacent wall, and a reverberant sound field, so the listener is listening to sound power, which was thought to be critical in those days, so the NS10M was designed for a flat sound power response. As a result, its on-axis frequency response displays a strong "mid-frequency emphasis", to quote Dr Toole again, which, he says, we now know is the wrong way to go about obtaining good sound. Today, we understand that flat on-axis frequency response is essential. That is why I recommended the Behringer studio and Krix home units: they get this right. (So will almost any JBL professional monitor, but I don't know of any passive units in your price range: their passive LSR6332 is over $6,000.) Dr Toole has also identified the NS10M as "adding some high-Q resonance around 600 Hz and 2.5 kHz, that add an annoying 'personality' to the playback... (the modern edition) seems to be trying to be flat but failing at both frequency extremes: "punchy" (instead of flat) bass at 80-100Hz due to the underdamped woofer hump, and rolled off high frequency response". As a special tool for mixing duties, and insight into what is going on in the midrange, the Yamaha is acceptable, and, more importantly, it is a consistent reference for mixing professionals who have 'calibrated their ears' to it. For playback duties, however, even for final mix mastering duties, a speaker with a flat on-axis response will be much superior, as long as it is also decent in other respects. I hope you don't mind my putting a few thoughts out there. Regards Grant
  11. Grant Slack

    Earworm: what's currently spinning in your head

    Since I played it last week, I can still hear "Red Vines" by Aimee Mann, off her Bachelor No. 2 album. The lazy beat perfectly blends with her man-weary, almost-talking vocals. "And I'm the only one who knows That Disneyland's about to close..." Okay, Aimee, now we know what you think of honeymoons! Regards Grant
  12. Again, a pleasure to read your post. Not wishing to extend an enjoyable conversation too far, but regarding the above extract, I am not sure if I misled you, and I wish to clarify. Case 4 was originally a DSD recording, and that is what introduces the noise shaping. Most 24/192 productions would be originally recorded in PCM digital, or recorded in analog and converted to PCM. PCM digital does not involve noise shaping. You will see no noise shaping on all music that does not involve DSD. It was only the SACD logo, on the case 4 image you put in your PDF file, that alerted me to the likely presence of noise shaping. It was a surprise. I would have thought they would release it as a DSD download (which still has the noise shaping, by the way). cheers
  13. Hello, I am pleased to read that it is not audible. That is what I was assuming. An audible sound would be completely unacceptable (and a very big surprise to me). While I don't deny your concerns for a minute, let me offer a few personal thoughts -- and that is all that they are -- on some of the broader topics that you have touched on, that might not be exactly the same as yours. I hope you don't mind. Regarding wasted 1's and 0's. A .dsd file, or a .wav file, has a fixed total file size, set by the initial digitisation settings, which does not change with the loudness or qualities of the music, other than number of seconds. And, when it is high-res, like 24/192, a lot of those 1's and 0's are representing sounds way beyond human hearing, by being far above 20 kHz, or far below the quietest we can hear in the room. So, whether the process places some noise in those 'wastelands', or not, does not change the file size at all. It only changes where the 1's are placed and where the 0's are placed. Your downloading money is the same. The only realistic way to not waste 1's and 0's, other than compression (ideally, .flac files), is to purchase a lower resolution version. Do I recommend that? Sadly, it's complicated. I want to say yes, but I can't trust the suppliers to give exactly the same original master at all resolutions offered (my fear is that they slip in a "loudness wars" CD rip for the 16/44 option. Even worse than that, we all know they often take a 16/44 original, and up-sample it to sell as high-resolution for a higher price. Now, that I do want to complain about. But it is futile. Too many have already complained, yet it happens.). And I do wish that 24/48 was offered more often. I would pick that if it was offered. I don't even know what to recommend to myself! My views on your last paragraph, touching on areas over 20 kHz, are sadly very conservative. You talk about wasted downloading money, and I agree. But it pales, in terms of significance, next to wasted money on equipment dedicated to playing those wasted 1's and 0's. I keep thinking: I know how much I would appreciate spending $5,000 on making my equipment play the music better between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, and how much I definitely would audibly benefit from it. So, why would I take those $5,000 away from that area (I am not made of money) and put it onto an area, where there is a massive debate about whether the gains are even slightly audible, or not, or maybe, or let's have a fight about it? In my very humble opinion, that is a decision that I find remarkably easy to make. But, to finish on a technical comment. You did ask about overtones, and instruments that output frequencies very much above 20 kHz. No doubt about it, they do. I just want to comment that any interference tones, that appear in the audible spectrum, will still be present in a recording with a lower sample rate. That is my understanding, for what it is worth. Regards Grant
  14. No, just an enthusiast, but with a bit of a grasp of technical stuff. Just to clarify, when you talk about 'the noise', do you mean you can actually hear it? If so, what does it sound like?
  15. I believe so, but your amplifier will quite possibly filter some of it out, and your speakers almost certainly will. It is mostly wasted 1's and 0's. If you care to lose it, you could convert your files to PCM 24/48, and save a lot of storage space too. cheers