Slaw, thanks for your comments. Likewise, my comments are not intended to be a criticism of anyone's preferences or tastes in either music or sound; which, at the end of the day, need to be respected. IMO, commentary and discussion, even (especially?) if it may get precariously close to instigating arguments, is what makes a forum such as this one worthwhile. So, in keeping with that spirit, I would like to offer some followup comments which may help explain our different reactions to this record.
I very seldom buy a recording based solely on it's sound quality. If I like the music and performance, that is good enough for me to want to buy it, and I do seek out recordings of music/performances that interest me that are known to have excellent sound quality. Also, for me, it is rare the recording (LP or CD) of music that I like that I simply cannot listen to in it's entirety because of it's recording quality. But, I do own many recordings that are recorded poorly or are inferior or damaged pressings that make the listening experience less enjoyable than it could be otherwise. Lastly, I do own some recordings with almost intolerable sound quality; but, "The Nightfly" is certainly not one of them.
I originally suggested this recording for possible use as a "reference" for several reasons:
- The first reason was that it is a recording of music that I felt would appeal to a lot of different musical tastes. It covers a lot of ground, and not being intimately familiar with the musical tastes of possible participants in this thread's "quest for a reference", it seemed like a safe bet.
- It is in a rock vein with strong contemporary jazz elements.
- Compositionally, in typical SD fashion, it is very strong (for a pop
recording), and there are many "layers" to the sound.
- It is very strong rhythmically, with a diverse range of time feels.
- Fagen hired a very diverse group of players, each very well suited for the feel of each individual composition, and with very individual musical personalities.
All of these considerations, I felt, would provide a lot of material for
discussion as they related to the abilities (or not) of the equipment to extract it.
Lastly, and not least(ly?), this recording has been almost universally praised by audiophiles for it's sound quality; to the extent that it was "beaten to death" at audio show demos for years after it's release.
So, what could account for our different reactions to it? I suspect that part of it is system balance. I find it telling that you find Aja to be wonderful sounding while I find it to be dark and somewhat thick sounding. Don't get me wrong, I think Aja is a terrific record with fine sound quality that in no way gets in the way of the music, but if judge it's sound quality we must, it is far from one of my favorites.
What I also find really interesting is that our systems have much in common. You use a VPI HW19 MK4, and I a TNT6 with the same platter as your MK4. Our arms are, obviously, the same. We also use the same phono stage; although mine has been heavily modified, and the changes to the sound (more resolution and clarity, less forgiving) would seem to favor your assessment of the sound of Nightlfy, not mine. I am not familiar with the sound of your speakers nor amp. But I use tube mono blocks (Manley 200/100) which are definitely very full and lush sounding. My speakers (either Paragon Regents or Stax F81's electrostats) are very both open sounding in the highs, but definitely not what many would consider "accurate", being not the least bit exaggerated in that range. So, what might all this say about the reasons for our different and strong opinions of the sound of Nightfly:
- the differences in the sound of our amps and speakers are so strong that they, in the case of your system, exaggerate the admitted digititis of the recording; or, in the case of my system, mask it.
- you are much more sensitive to digital distortions than I am.
Thoughts?
BTW, I continue to feel that in spite of system differences, use of a reference recording to judge a piece of gear (cartridge) can be very useful. I think that the key is to focus more on the musical aspects of the recordings ("bass player A plays a little more on top of the beat than bass player B") and not so much on the "sound"; whatever that means.
Regards.
I very seldom buy a recording based solely on it's sound quality. If I like the music and performance, that is good enough for me to want to buy it, and I do seek out recordings of music/performances that interest me that are known to have excellent sound quality. Also, for me, it is rare the recording (LP or CD) of music that I like that I simply cannot listen to in it's entirety because of it's recording quality. But, I do own many recordings that are recorded poorly or are inferior or damaged pressings that make the listening experience less enjoyable than it could be otherwise. Lastly, I do own some recordings with almost intolerable sound quality; but, "The Nightfly" is certainly not one of them.
I originally suggested this recording for possible use as a "reference" for several reasons:
- The first reason was that it is a recording of music that I felt would appeal to a lot of different musical tastes. It covers a lot of ground, and not being intimately familiar with the musical tastes of possible participants in this thread's "quest for a reference", it seemed like a safe bet.
- It is in a rock vein with strong contemporary jazz elements.
- Compositionally, in typical SD fashion, it is very strong (for a pop
recording), and there are many "layers" to the sound.
- It is very strong rhythmically, with a diverse range of time feels.
- Fagen hired a very diverse group of players, each very well suited for the feel of each individual composition, and with very individual musical personalities.
All of these considerations, I felt, would provide a lot of material for
discussion as they related to the abilities (or not) of the equipment to extract it.
Lastly, and not least(ly?), this recording has been almost universally praised by audiophiles for it's sound quality; to the extent that it was "beaten to death" at audio show demos for years after it's release.
So, what could account for our different reactions to it? I suspect that part of it is system balance. I find it telling that you find Aja to be wonderful sounding while I find it to be dark and somewhat thick sounding. Don't get me wrong, I think Aja is a terrific record with fine sound quality that in no way gets in the way of the music, but if judge it's sound quality we must, it is far from one of my favorites.
What I also find really interesting is that our systems have much in common. You use a VPI HW19 MK4, and I a TNT6 with the same platter as your MK4. Our arms are, obviously, the same. We also use the same phono stage; although mine has been heavily modified, and the changes to the sound (more resolution and clarity, less forgiving) would seem to favor your assessment of the sound of Nightlfy, not mine. I am not familiar with the sound of your speakers nor amp. But I use tube mono blocks (Manley 200/100) which are definitely very full and lush sounding. My speakers (either Paragon Regents or Stax F81's electrostats) are very both open sounding in the highs, but definitely not what many would consider "accurate", being not the least bit exaggerated in that range. So, what might all this say about the reasons for our different and strong opinions of the sound of Nightfly:
- the differences in the sound of our amps and speakers are so strong that they, in the case of your system, exaggerate the admitted digititis of the recording; or, in the case of my system, mask it.
- you are much more sensitive to digital distortions than I am.
Thoughts?
BTW, I continue to feel that in spite of system differences, use of a reference recording to judge a piece of gear (cartridge) can be very useful. I think that the key is to focus more on the musical aspects of the recordings ("bass player A plays a little more on top of the beat than bass player B") and not so much on the "sound"; whatever that means.
Regards.