review33.com:影音天地:“分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？

分類搜尋 移民 | 借錢 | 投資 | 物流 | 搬運 | 按揭 | 樓盤 | 保險 | 機票 | 酒店 | 升學 | 補習 | 手錶 | 電腦 | 紅酒 | 網購 | 脫髮 | 健身 | 減肥 | 濕疹

影音天地主旨 ﹝請按主旨作出回應﹞ 下頁尾頁

寄件者

傳送日期

[#1] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？我計畫買一台CDP，要求分析力高、音樂感強。不過有鋪頭小二就話，分析力高即為高頻與極高頻多、中頻薄、不耐聽la，音樂感強之器材分析力都不會太高（如LINN）。我都不太同意，但又講不出反駁理據。分析力同音樂感真乃不可兼得？你話呢？		Frank-J 正式會員 210.xxx.xxx.130	2004-09-13 14:01

[#2] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
坉禷貐,亂咁up,咪信,Linn分析力唔差

叔叔

正式會員
221.xxx.xxx.124

2004-09-13 15:39

[#3] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
What 鋪頭小二 said is not correct!

What he's talking about is 分 but no 析 or 分析 only in the frequency domain.

There's also 分析 in the time domain. The leading edge, body and decay of a particular tone must be 分析 and correlated back into their original form in proper proportions.
Too much leading edge in proportion should not be interpreted as 分析力高.

F2aYeung

正式會員
61.xxx.xxx.75

2004-09-13 15:49

[#4] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
你去邊間買野嫁?
等大家下次唔好啦,
講埋d野九唔撘八

bonbon

正式會員
61.xxx.xxx.77

2004-09-13 16:25

[#5] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Thank you all. I am trying to understand F2aYeung's opinion.
And which cdp (cdps) under 20k do you think does best in 分析力+音樂感?

Frank-J

正式會員
210.xxx.xxx.130

2004-09-13 16:49

[#6] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Linn分析力唔差 ..Yes ...agree ,,

but Linn is 音樂感強 more than Hifi Feel ...

要求分析力高 I think Japan CDP/SACD-P is much more suitable for you ,,,....

some like Denon , Sony .....their 分析力is very hi

as many guys said ,,," Japan Sound "

if need a CDP which contain 分析力+音樂感 ....

as many people looking for ,,,,,

many be need Goldmund , Ohphes .....

but their price is $$$$$$$$$$

MakiGoto

正式會員
219.xxx.xxx.164

2004-09-13 17:02

[#7] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
People are tend to describe increase in high freq is a sign of high resolution especially in AB comparison. A CDP with more high freq is tend to give better impression for AB comparison as listener would think it gives more details thus easier to sell. In the budget of $20K or below, it is easy to find a "High resolution/freq" CDP but difficult to find a warm and musiscal these days. Listen to real music in a real world, you will find "Real" music are less "high freq" than those high freq concentrated CDP in real world.

kent6434

正式會員
203.xxx.xxx.11

2004-09-13 17:08

[#8] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
kent6434 ,

agree ....

I think I do suggest him ...

Linn Ikemi or Genki or Classik

YBA ( forget model ....)

Audiomeca Obssession

Luxman DU-7

MakiGoto

正式會員
219.xxx.xxx.164

2004-09-13 17:14

[#9] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Totally agree with kent6434! This makes me calm down and reconsider what kind of sound I really like.

Frank-J

正式會員
210.xxx.xxx.130

2004-09-13 17:15

[#10] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Frank-J

if you had chance .....

pls try to find some shops which demo ,,,

Linn ..YBA ....Audiomeca CDP ....

their sound for CD is good ka !!

MakiGoto

正式會員
219.xxx.xxx.164

2004-09-13 17:17

[#11] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Thank you, MakiGoto.
I do know that the brands you have listed are known for being musical, but I have got another question: are these "musical" gears only good at playing back vocal and soft music but not as good with "heavy" music? Cos I spend 60% of my music-listening time on classical (esp. orchestral works).
Thanks again.

Frank-J

正式會員
210.xxx.xxx.130

2004-09-13 17:30

[#12] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
UK CDPs like Linn, naim, Rega,are producing very musical CDPs. You may also consider Accuphase or Marantz from Japan.

kent6434

正式會員
203.xxx.xxx.11

2004-09-13 17:39

[#13] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Frank-J ,

you're wellcome ,,,,and your question is my question before ,,,,

I'd use Ikemi for 2 yrs ..before ,,,But since I like classcial/symphony and some heavy classic msuic ,,,,,,like Mahler no.2 . Beethoven 5...etc

Ikemi 100% not suitable and can't give the wide big stage feel ,,,,,,

afterwards ,,,I change to Accuphase transport+ DAC

it's better ,,,,,,,

but for upgarde to SACD .....

I give up Accuphase combo and change to one small SACD/CD transport unti now ,,,,,...

MakiGoto

正式會員
219.xxx.xxx.164

2004-09-13 17:41

[#14] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
MakiGoto,

Accuphase transport 100 & Accuphase dac 110 is good enough?

hakman

正式會員
222.xxx.xxx.32

2004-09-13 18:00

[#15] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
So your conclusion is that "musical" gears really cannot play "heavy" music well enough?
If so, it seems that I still have to find a "hi-fi" cdp instead of a Linn-alike one.

Frank-J

正式會員
210.xxx.xxx.130

2004-09-13 18:11

[#16] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Frank-J ,

I think in my case .......Linn Ikemi is not fit to my music style any more......( the reason why I sell )

Ikemi is good CDP with her musicial feel and nice build ,,,,,,very beautiful sound for jazz and vocal music CD ......special for female voice ...very beautiful ...

if use it for heavy classic/symphony ..like Mahler

it will not too suitable ...la ....( for me )

hakman ,

sorry ,,,,I'm not using 100+101 ,,,,,I
using another Japan brand SACD transport ,,,,,

very good ka !!

MakiGoto

正式會員
219.xxx.xxx.22

2004-09-13 19:39

[#17] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Frank-J,

Read the following and you'll get the idea.

Resolution & musicality

Audiophiles are often divided into two groups: Those who prefer an analytic sound and those who prefer a musical one. An analytic sound comes across a hard, cold, hyper-detailed. The prevailing view is that those who prefer an analytic presentation value detail for its own sake. For these "lost souls", the outstanding virtue of an audio playback system is its capacity to resolve details. In contrast, a musical sound is said to be easy on the ears, relaxed, warm, robust, rich and comforting.

One of my closest audiophile friends insists on this distinction. He has often been overheard recounting with all due sincerity his history as a well-heeled audiophile. In the '80s, he'd pursued the path of detail & resolution, but sometime in the '90s he came to his senses, found his way and has been pursuing a path of musicality over high resolution ever since. He is just one of the many who have come to think of those who prefer a ""musical" sound as music lovers. It leaves others who are drawn to high resolution systems as misguided souls.

According to this world view, they'd rather analyze than enjoy the music and hence must be written off as folks who have sadly lost or missed the point of an audio playback system. I don't buy it. However familiar and seductive the alleged distinction between musicality and high resolution may be -- and however often perfectly intelligent and well-meaning audiophiles insist upon it -- the distinction is not merely without content or merit, its persistence is both misleading and dangerous.

The resolution of detail is one thing; the tonality of presentation another. A highly resolving system can be rich, full- bodied, fully developed, warm and relaxed. Indeed, audio reproduction must be both highly resolving and tonally correct if it is to be musical. In my view, the inability of a component to resolve fine detail is the single greatest limiting factor of its ability to play music. There simply is no music without high resolution.

Notes have a leading edge, a body and a natural decay. While notes do make up music, they cannot be interpreted as such if they are inadequately resolved. If the leading edge is inadequately resolved, it appears as blunted or rounded and musical dynamics suffer accordingly - there is no sense of transient attack. If the body of a note is inadequately resolved -- if its harmonic structure is not fleshed out or unraveled -- the sound comes across as either fat, undifferentiated, syrupy and oversaturated or as harmonically bleached and thin.

There are many more ways of getting this wrong than right. This is not to gainsay that some ways of failing are more desirable and easier on the ears than others. Of course there are more or less satisfying ways of falling short of an ideal. Most of us probably prefer a warm and sweet sound to a thin and edgy one. But at the end of the day, the ear identifies all shortcomings as failings, the mind grows unwilling to accept them and the heart refuses to embrace them.

If there is no denying then that accurate musical playback requires high resolution, why do so many audiophiles insist on contrasting high resolution systems with musical ones? Part of the answer may be that they confuse high resolution with an analytic sound. This identification is entirely unwarranted, however. An analytical presentation highlights the leading edge of notes at the expense of their body and natural decay. But the leading edge unaccompanied by the rest of the note represents the very absence of resolution, not the paradigm of it. The notes are being indicated by their leading edge, they are not being resolved. The same can be said of music playback systems that portray sharply etched images in space. Again, these are often described as high resolution but are anything but - they fail to resolve the space between the musicians. They represent playback as separate and distinct parts when in fact the essence of a musical performance is its continuity. There is air and space between performers on a stage or in a studio. Sharply etched images create the sense of several musicians playing at the same time, but not as a group playing together. The latter is central to the very idea of music - and a highly resolving though not analytical system will portray it as such.

F2aYeung

正式會員
61.xxx.xxx.2

2004-09-13 19:58

[#18] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
People tend to mix high resolution with analytic / cold / hard sound or with too much high frequency, or as said above with too much leading edge.

I haven't played any super expensive equipment, but in my understanding, high resolution is coming revealation of minute signal and resolving of complex signals into individual sources of instrument.

Saying this, when you can hear fine details of voice / sound disregarding it is high or low frequency, and you can hear distinctly the instrument, in that sense, you have successfully tuned your system into high resolution.

Just my sheer opinions.

alexhifi

正式會員
192.xxx.xxx.33

2004-09-13 21:27

[#19] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
Sometimes ago, I have used a Prxxxd transport with an Apxxx DAC, yes, at the first week of listening, I can hear a lot of details compared before. Needless to say, I can hear the vibrating throat of singer. It really sounded wonderful at the first instant.

But, after 1 or 2 weeks, I immediately discovered the screaming voice from singers. I cannot tolerate large volume simply it will not be music anymore at such a large volume.

I have also used Sony SACD player, its transport can give more netural sound than the Prxxxd, although its sound was more flat and lack of emotion.

alexhifi

正式會員
192.xxx.xxx.33

2004-09-13 21:39

[#20] “分析力高”=高頻過多+不耐聽？
I remember the time when I listened Marantz CD-12/DA-12, yes, it is sounding more warm and fuller. The high range is protruding and it is giving limited sound depth and width.

Somebody said, the Marantz combo is short of resolution when compared to his newer 24 bit CD player, but at the same time, he said that the 24 bit CD was giving cold and hard soud.

I don't intend to condemn any new digital unit, what I try to say is that, high resolution must be coming from the whole spectrum and from revealation of the last detail.

Putting it in more comprehensible way, a high resolution system should be able to reveal the minimum signal level from the base freq, middle freq and the high freq.

If only base freq is emphasised, you wil hear booming sound.

If other two ranges are emphasised, you will hear either too thick or too cold sound.

Alex

alexhifi

正式會員
192.xxx.xxx.33

2004-09-13 21:47