-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
If Sir T you truly believe that I am "bait" then quit falling for it and put me on the ignore list, that's what it's designed for. I think you choose to NOT put me there because you like arguing and you like battling back and forth over things, which maybe that brings excitement into your life, but it annoys the rest of us.
Don't think, you are not good at it.
It wasn't me who was in the off topic section crying like a baby because a poll was made on me. Apparently you do more to annoy folks, which is why your sorry a$$ was banned before.
-
WTF?!
Last I looked this was the ANALOG room.
I'm not having this place jammed up with personal crap. Take it somewhere else or I will do it for you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
We have 20 staff audio engineers, all with different equipment. 10 of those guys have changed their equipment several times over the years, and I have heard every change they have made. I have been an audio engineer for close to thirty years and have used many different piece of equipment depending on where I am mixing. What makes their word more valid than mine, or Bernie's, Elliott''s or Chuck's?
Such could only be determined when their points of reference are known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
When I say this is what I heard, YOU have freaked out demanding an extensive equipment list, something I have never asked you, or your reviewer friends to do.
I simply asked "on what tube gear is your judgment of the superiority of SS over ALL tube gear based"? Such a grandiose statement must assuredly be based on some substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
When some says this is what I heard, my only question would be compared to what? Most reviewers don't know if what they are hearing is truly accurate. Most have not compared what they hear to the master file or tape, so how do they know what is accurate, and what is not?
The master tape played back using what? The master tape Bernie uses with his tube recorder? Truly, the only reference is live unamplified music, but one can tell a good bit comparing two electronic products when one has frequent exposure to the sound of live music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Don't make an assumption you have heard from a wider pool, you don't know that.
In the past five years, I have heard the following tube gear in an exceptional and familiar system:
Aesthetix Callisto Signature
ASL Hurricanes
Atma Sphere M-100s
Conrad-Johnson ART II
Conrad-Johnson ART III
Conrad-Johnson MET-6
Hovland HP-100
Joule Electra Rite-of-Passage
VTL 7.5 II
VTL Wotans
VTL Siegfrieds
Western Electric WE-97A
I would like to hear the later Audio Research amps such as the REF210 and 610T along the Wolcott models as well. I'm told the latest McIntosh 2301 is also very good. The list of SS gear is about as lengthy. In addition to having owned other VTL, Manley and Audio Research gear for nearly thirty years. If their exposure to tube gear is as wide, why do you have a problem with pointing out what that is? The number of guys you have has no bearing on the variety of that which they've heard in a familiar environment. Especially when none of them uses tubes! Right?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I simply asked "on what tube gear is your judgment of the superiority of SS over ALL tube gear based"? Such a grandiose statement must assuredly be based on some substance.
rw
I would say that this is a very pertinent question, especially if your posting a statement like that in the Analog room.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I'll bet you will lose that bet. What if the recording was originally digital? Could you make the same statement? I doubt it. Since almost nobody records in analog anymore, just finding material that is recorded in both digital and analog would be next to impossible.
The state of the art in recording is DXD, which has far more ability to capture fine detail, and is far more tonally accurate than any analog recording I have made. It can also be transcoded to 24/192khz PCM, Dolby TruHD, and Dts HD Master Audio with any loss. There is no analog equivalent to 32/354.2khz bit and sample rate of DXD, it is beyond what any analog medium can acheive.
When you make a claim that all analog is better than all digital, it might be helpful if you are specific with the resolution of digital you are referring to. I have yet to hear any analog that has the resolution of 24/192khz digital.
Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!
I am definitely a recent convert as well, which is why my goal by the end of this year is to create an analogue system.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!
I have a reviewer friend who has some really nice stuff. One of his favorite listening demo recordings is Howard Hanson's The Composer and His Orchestra. I've heard it through the magnificent Clearaudio Statement / Goldfinger cartridge / Zanden phono pre vs. an EMM Labs CD-SAse using VTL 7.5 II line stage, Siegfried amps, Odin cabling and Scaena 1.4s. I have to confess that the digital version (merely 44.1 at that) is darn close and infinitely easier to deal with. Don't get me wrong about turntable hassle - I've futzed with a Souther TQ-1 (now Clearaudio) linear arm for over twenty five years. Arguably, the Zanden does a bit better with harmonic fullness, but the digital flavor is quieter and every bit as dynamic. I have not had a chance to visit him since he changed over to using the better still EMM Labs XDS1 player which replaces the two stage op amp output with a single discrete stage and more stable Teac Esoteric transport. I suspect the differences are going to be closer still. On the other hand, the Clearaudio table is simply a magnificent and gorgeous 800 pound device. The upper platter is driven magnetically from the lower platter and the whole upper assembly gimbals like a ceiling fan suspended by hundreds of pounds of counterweights. Yet, you can nudge the platter and it will gently sway at your command.
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/statement2.jpg
I cut my teeth on vinyl back in the late 60s and still have a goodly collection that I play on two tables, but I find that digital has come a long way in the past decade. My garage system uses a Manley DAC which has a simple 12AU7 based line stage with analog gain controls that drives the amp directly. While that is not on the level of high resolution of the EMM Labs units, the simple triode output obviates the need for an additional line stage and sounds pretty sweet.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!
The amount of new vinyl released this year compared to CD is less than 1% according to my NDP stats. There is no new analog recording technology moving forward through the pipeline that I have seen, but there is ton's of new recording technology for digital.
In talking with other audio engineers all over this country in the last two years, I know of no one who has done an analog recording over the last five years, everyone is doing digital these days.
Since I saw no DXD based recordings at the California Audio show, as a matter of fact, I saw no new digital recordings there at all except the ones they were doing live at the show(under perhaps the worst recording conditions I have seen). So it seems your comparison are only based on Redbook CD, which among digital formats used now days, a low fi medium. Comparing 16bit to vinyl is no contest. Comparing vinyl to DXD is no contest.
One of the things I took note to and mentioned to my buddy is that not one of the exhibitors used any 24 bit recordings with their demo's. Everything was either 16bit digital, or vinyl. There were a few SACD recordings, but they were sourced from 16/88.2 PCM masters, not DSD. In other words, there was no real high resolution recordings except the ones I brought on the days I attended. So to say that vinyl was better than digital, isn't saying much at all when it comes to that audio show.
-
E-Stat...
Wow man, great photo!
Wish we could keep this thread about tubes and analog (analogue) since I am trying to learn more about it as I make my first venture into this world.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So to say that vinyl was better than digital, isn't saying much at all when it comes to that audio show.
That was a very informative summary for one who did not attend the show. Thanks for providing that level of detail.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
... since I am trying to learn more about it as I make my first venture into this world.
I am going to make a heretical statement to some: unless your budget can encompass units such as the ARC REF2 here the Zanden 1200 here or a select few others which are loftily priced statement products, I think you get more bang for the buck using single ended zero feedback Class A FETs for the phono stage. There are a host of fine examples, especially in my budget range. The noise level of even good tubes cannot do justice to medium output moving coil cartridges. As one who finds low level resolution important, I'd rather swap noise out for a tad less harmonic richness.
rw
-
I think if I had the cash, I would go with Micro Seiki. Their tables are true analog statements, yet considerably less cash than the other "big boys". Take this SX-8000 II for example. I think the most expensive offering still comes in under $20K...
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Site_Im...o%208000-2.jpg
-
E-Stat
Sir T did attend the CA Show.
Sir T. The problem with talking about higher level digital formats is that you are coming at this from an RE perspecitve. That's not a problem for you of course but the "public" and to nearly the same degree the "press" come by the best retail products at audio shows. That's where the manufacturers show their wares. Unless the technology is available to the public it doesn't matter if the bit rate is 40 billion and samples a trillion times if the public can only buy CD and SACD music then that is the standard that it makes sense to compare to.
Even if we assume SACD sounds better than CD - and I am not convinced because certain players with CD make SACD sound pale and washed out - but even if we accept SACD as superior it has not sold to the point of remotely becoming the dominant format.
The format needs both wide and deep software support.
I have long said that if you actually cared a damn about music then you need both CD and Vinyl in your system because there is plenty of software on each not available on the other. The fact that one sounds better is moot. And as you know many vinyl versions sound better than their CD counterparts due to the "dumped on" recordings of early CDs. A remastered CD may be better but they didn't remaster everything in the 1980s and part of the 1990's. It doesn't matter if the technology is better - it matters only at the replay level - if the LP was recorded very well and the CD version was corrupted by marketing departments that want it compressed to get loud then the vinyl version will kill it. Whatever theoretical advantage CD had over the vinyl counterpart is lost in the recording process.
SACD - well my dealer carries nice machines and there are some very good recordings but some real disasters and he is of the opinion that far too many of them sound horrible considering that it's supposedly the "new and better" CD, you simply can't put out soooo many dogs when you want people to spend an extra 30-40% on the album. He purchased the same album about 7 times remastered CD's, SACD versions DVD Audio and the vinyl still sounded better.
To everyone else
The guys at Puget Sound put on a demo at CES they claim is one of the highest bit rates in the digital world - their demonstration therefore is the best digital out there for playback in terms of specs.
And I have to say that Sir T is correct - the digital had a full bodied sound and quite three dimensional and it was hooked up to SS amplifiers and Usher speakers. This was a GREAT sounding room and it was not ridiculous - the speakers were something like $17,000 but it was a lot better than most rooms. I regret now not covering the room more. Had I been more of a digital fan I would have stayed and reported more on the digital front end. But it was my first show report and a lot of things I would handle better next time.
But before all the tube vinyl guys get on Sir T - I think you really should hear the high bitrate (pardon my horrid terminology) of the digital that goes beyond CD/SACD. You may still "like" tube/vinyl" better but you will at least see where Sir T is coming from because that digital didn't sound digital - it sounded very very real and not as washed out and thin. And that was on a system that I didn't think I would care for. I covered the room too briefly and no photo of the puget sound DSD guys http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=683
Here is the system that JVS of Stereophile noted and I believe was the same one at CES
"Bruce had brought along a Pyramix DSD/DXD workstation, and a Digit Audio Denmark converter capable of 32-bit/352.8kHz operation. He was also especially enthused about the forthcoming FIM Super Sounds, USB cards with 24/176.4 files. To my mind, this seems like an immensely practical, compact alternative to Reference Recordings' 24/176.4 HRx master DVD-Rs. I can't wait to audition one."
I am a SE tube guy, I like the simple is better approach and lord knows people think I am insanely (note insane) biased towards it but people are dumping in Sir T for not trying certain things but at the same time are doing the same by not at least auditioning the DSD/DXD set-up. I can tell you it souned bloody awesome. We can't just make an assumption that because something is one technology it is automatically bad.
I spent several hours last week auditioning Sim Audio SS and an apple iMac into a Ayre DAC into Dynaudio Focus 220 II loudspeakers and another system with a Soolos interface with Audio Note DAC 2.1 through Classe power amps into B&W D802 speakers.
It's really interesting to hear the different technologies and mixed together. The D802 actually sounded quite clear and more dynamic in the midband. The Soolos is great - Terry treats it like the ultimate FM radio without the commericals - you could play music for a year solid and never hear the same song twice. Looking at it that way it's great as background and I felt it was quite good in the foreground - Yes the LP on the LINN sounds better but trying to find the record of the song you want to hear could have you spending an hour - (he owns 20,000+ records) - with Soolos you type in the first few letters of the name and it pops up and you push a button on the screen and lists all the songs - all the musicians who play on the track and even a review of the album - then you can call up the musicians and see if they have an album. Say what you will about the sound quality but the music access is stunning - you know music - the stuff that got us into this in the first place!
The Dynaudio sounded very good as well - a little washed out on the CD player - oddly it sounded more three dimensional on the iMac - but given the price of the front end gear the speakers did a fine job of telling you which source was better. The treble was quite controlled but still open and they could play fairly loud without compression - don't know what the speakers cost but they would not be out of place at $3-5k. Perhaps a little dark but they're tougher to drive speakers and the Sim Audio was an integrated so it may not have had quite the grunt.
The point I guess is to keep an open mind on digital and keep listening because the digital engineers(the ones who care about music and the ones not working for reject marketing departments who have it all compressed) do in fact strive to make it better. Too many audiophiles heard digital in 1984 and said it sucks and forever decide it's horrible. It's a lot better than it was.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
E-Stat
Sir T did attend the CA Show.
I know. That's why I thanked him for providing a summary that, well necessarily meant that he attended. Maybe my wording was clumsy as the "for one" would be me - who did not attend.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Sir T. The problem with talking about higher level digital formats is that you are coming at this from an RE perspecitve. That's not a problem for you of course but the "public" and to nearly the same degree the "press" come by the best retail products at audio shows. That's where the manufacturers show their wares. Unless the technology is available to the public it doesn't matter if the bit rate is 40 billion and samples a trillion times if the public can only buy CD and SACD music then that is the standard that it makes sense to compare to.
Here is the rub Richard, there are DXD based recordings out there, it is just that because its on the Blu ray disc, audiophiles dismiss it(especially vinyl lovers), even those that love classical music. Even if you don't own a Blu ray player, they are also on SACD as demonstrated here.
http://www.mamut.net/lindberglyd/shop/
There are high resolution FLAC files here
http://www.klicktrack.com/2l/search?...C+96kHz+24+bit
and here:
http://www.klicktrack.com/2l/search?...+192kHz+24+bit
This is just a few, but the point I am trying to make is that DXD based recordings are out there, the public and press just needs to go seek them out, as they are not that hard to find. While it is now limited to classical music, with more support, it will spread to other genre's.
Quote:
Even if we assume SACD sounds better than CD - and I am not convinced because certain players with CD make SACD sound pale and washed out - but even if we accept SACD as superior it has not sold to the point of remotely becoming the dominant format.
The format needs both wide and deep software support.
You are right, but just like DVD-A, SACD, CD at one time, you have to start somewhere. The support is definately growing, I can see that. But some of the DXD based titles are already on Amazon for pete sake!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Divertimenti-H...2435751&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDI...=pd_cp_d_1_img
http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDI...=pd_cp_d_1_img
Some audiophiles are embracing these recordings, but the vinyl crowd(and the audio press) have not embraced it(or are slow to), but continue to white knuckle their vinyl collections.
When I first entered this thread, I clearly stated I was coming from an recording engineers perspective, which I stated was quite a different perspective than most here. I thought I made that pretty clear at the onset.
Quote:
I have long said that if you actually cared a damn about music then you need both CD and Vinyl in your system because there is plenty of software on each not available on the other. The fact that one sounds better is moot. And as you know many vinyl versions sound better than their CD counterparts due to the "dumped on" recordings of early CDs. A remastered CD may be better but they didn't remaster everything in the 1980s and part of the 1990's. It doesn't matter if the technology is better - it matters only at the replay level - if the LP was recorded very well and the CD version was corrupted by marketing departments that want it compressed to get loud then the vinyl version will kill it. Whatever theoretical advantage CD had over the vinyl counterpart is lost in the recording process.
I agree with this. Too bad I gave all of my vinyl collection and TT away to somebody who would appreciate it far more than I did. I get my analog fix from on a Tascam 85 16b, with 2" tapes run at 30IPS with Dolby SR. I have about 100 classical recordings on 2" reel to reel, and another two or so dozen recordings I have done myself. That is the extent of my analog listening these days, and it only happens occasionally.
Quote:
SACD - well my dealer carries nice machines and there are some very good recordings but some real disasters and he is of the opinion that far too many of them sound horrible considering that it's supposedly the "new and better" CD, you simply can't put out soooo many dogs when you want people to spend an extra 30-40% on the album. He purchased the same album about 7 times remastered CD's, SACD versions DVD Audio and the vinyl still sounded better.
Remasters are only as good as the remastering engineer. The key to getting good SACD recordings comes from recording in DXD, mix and master in DXD, and transcode the final mix to a DSD stream. That stream must be decoded by a DSD decoder on a pre-pro or high end receiver. Once DSD is turned into PCM, it degrades the sound overall IME. 2L makes some of the best DSD based SACD recordings I have ever heard.
Quote:
The point I guess is to keep an open mind on digital and keep listening because the digital engineers(the ones who care about music and the ones not working for reject marketing departments who have it all compressed) do in fact strive to make it better. Too many audiophiles heard digital in 1984 and said it sucks and forever decide it's horrible. It's a lot better than it was.
Not only is it a lot better than it was, it is a lot better today than 5 short years ago thanks to DXD and DSD128(of which not many have used, or still use, but I still use).
-
Well I just bought a Blu-Ray machine yesterday - a PS3 but it's still a Blu-Ray. May as well try some music - Stereophile gave a relatively good review to the PS1 for sound quality so who knows the PS3 seems to do everything.
PS: The TV I ended up with was a 32 inch Insignia. http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8b402ba0aeen02
I know not a name brand from Sony or LG. But the retail price was $550 1080p and 120hz. They had a sale to $399 and I got the demo with a 4 year warranty for $349. Frankly, my eyes can't tell the difference - it looks quite good to my eyes and the sound is quite a lot better than our 40 inch Sony. It also has a headphone jack and swivels which some TV's don't possess. Granted the demo has been on the shelf for 5 months at 10 hours or so a day - so there's a lot of hours on it - on the flip side at least I know it made it that long (kind of a burn in) without clunking out. I basically went off the customer reviews http://milo.com/insignia-32-class-10...tv#description - for $350 it cost what the PS3 cost. In a few years I'll go with the big 60-80 inch beasties and by then they'll probably be half the price they are now.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Well I just bought a Blu-Ray machine yesterday - a PS3 but it's still a Blu-Ray. May as well try some music - Stereophile gave a relatively good review to the PS1 for sound quality so who knows the PS3 seems to do everything.
Good show with the PS3, I does a lot of things well. It is an excellent Blu ray player, great gaming machine, very nice CD player, and does very well as a SACD player even though it converts the DSD to PCM. It does this conversion exceptionally well, and at a high bit and sample rate of 24/176.4 which would make it lossless to the DSD stream, and also lessen any degradation that would come from the conversion. If you need any help tweaking the PS3 for getting the best sound from it, hit me up, I got the best settings from the guys that did the algorithm.
Quote:
PS: The TV I ended up with was a 32 inch Insignia. http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8b402ba0aeen02
I know not a name brand from Sony or LG. But the retail price was $550 1080p and 120hz. They had a sale to $399 and I got the demo with a 4 year warranty for $349. Frankly, my eyes can't tell the difference - it looks quite good to my eyes and the sound is quite a lot better than our 40 inch Sony. It also has a headphone jack and swivels which some TV's don't possess. Granted the demo has been on the shelf for 5 months at 10 hours or so a day - so there's a lot of hours on it - on the flip side at least I know it made it that long (kind of a burn in) without clunking out. I basically went off the customer reviews http://milo.com/insignia-32-class-10...tv#description - for $350 it cost what the PS3 cost. In a few years I'll go with the big 60-80 inch beasties and by then they'll probably be half the price they are now.
Good luck on your new purchase, and get that thing calibrated! There are a couple of Blu ray based calibration disc out there....the best being the Spears & Munsil calibration disc
http://www.amazon.com/Spears-Munsil-.../dp/B001UM29OC
-
I've been hearing the same story (it's getting better) ever since digital disgraced the "high" end audio scene. I repeat: NO ONE, either salesman, or customer, thought that digital could come close to analogue in realism. Only a very few defended ss over tubes, but NO ONE defended digital. I repeat: at one room I heard several, ever higher digital formats of Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby". But when I got them to play my Acoustics Sounds' analogue vinyl version, EVERYONE admitted that digital was still far behind. There are countless purely analogue vinyl records out there, and, unless I actually hear good digital, I see no reason to switch.
Another quote from the latest Stereophile: "When you played records, you wanted to hear more records," said Malcolm jones, the jazz writer from Newsweek, unaware that the analogue archnid was about to pounce. "There was just something in there that made you want to keep putting another disc on the turntable. And when you play digital, that's not there."
"My famous quote," sayeth Sir Fremer the Shy, "back in 1983, was that digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it amd it lasts forever."
Also, there is this: TTT could not hear the clear superiority of tape copies of masters in the Evolution Acoustics room. I spent a large portion of the three days in that room, marveling at the pure realism of the sound when the tapes were playing. It was like being at the musical event. When they switched to their high end digital system (a Playback Designs MPS-5-Reference SCAD/CD Player with 24/192 input, $15,000), the sound was a little better than average. If you could not hear the difference (again, EVERYONE in the room when I was there could clearly hear a HUGE difference), you should get your hearing checked!
-
I don't know tube fan. At that price point (10K+), digital becomes quite competetive. With the right source material, I'm not sure the difference is night and day anymore. Don't be fooled, I am for analog but I have been convinced that digital is indeed heel biting.
A wealthy customer at my local shop was coming in to audition a pair of Audio Physics. He had made the jump into digital, having recently been convinced that it had "caught up". They had him come in the evening, when the shop is closed.
On the condition that I help set the room up, and be a servant boy (yes they were laughing at me), I was allowed to sit in.
Anyhow, he brought his "second system" of Pass Labs pre and power, but the real deal breaker for me was a Zanden Model 5000 DAC. I forget what we used as a transport, but that's unimportant really. I think I grabbed one of the newer Arcam units.
Anyhow, the exact word anyone in the room had, was realism. It was uncanny. I have yet to hear anything come close to the Zanden. That really helped to broker my love for Philips chips, the only chip Zanden will use apparently. I was surely convinced to say the least.
Man we listened to that thing for about 4 or 5 hours, most of the time, in complete silence. All in reverance to what we were hearing. I wanted to hook up the Pro-Ject 9.1, but we never did.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
I've been hearing the same story (it's getting better) ever since digital disgraced the "high" end audio scene. I repeat: NO ONE, either salesman, or customer, thought that digital could come close to analogue in realism. Only a very few defended ss over tubes, but NO ONE defended digital. I repeat: at one room I heard several, ever higher digital formats of Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby". But when I got them to play my Acoustics Sounds' analogue vinyl version, EVERYONE admitted that digital was still far behind. There are countless purely analogue vinyl records out there, and, unless I actually hear good digital, I see no reason to switch.
The digital you heard at that show was 16bit digital, that is all they had there. And what SACD's they had were played through players that transcoded the DSD stream to PCM, which is the worst way to handle SACD. There were ZERO demonstrations of high resolution audio done right - and the only one that had any high resolution recordings done right was me. When you have nothing legitimate to compare too, it is easy to make the argument that vinyl sounded better. Another thing is there were far more tube based amps at this show than SS, and most of them were in the larger rooms where the sound could stretch its legs sort of speak. This show was more tailored to vinyl and tubes than any show I have ever been to. I think CES is better at having more of a variety of both high end digital and analog, and high end tubes and SS.
Quote:
Another quote from the latest Stereophile: "When you played records, you wanted to hear more records," said Malcolm jones, the jazz writer from Newsweek, unaware that the analogue archnid was about to pounce. "There was just something in there that made you want to keep putting another disc on the turntable. And when you play digital, that's not there."
He was referring to 16bit digital, and we are now at 24 and 32 bit digital. It looks to me like the older guys are slow to move on. :yesnod:
Quote:
"My famous quote," sayeth Sir Fremer the Shy, "back in 1983, was that digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it amd it lasts forever."
1993 was seventeen years ago...:rolleyes5: Do you really think that digital technology has stood still for that long?
Quote:
Also, there is this: TTT could not hear the clear superiority of tape copies of masters in the Evolution Acoustics room. I spent a large portion of the three days in that room, marveling at the pure realism of the sound when the tapes were playing. It was like being at the musical event. When they switched to their high end digital system (a Playback Designs MPS-5-Reference SCAD/CD Player with 24/192 input, $15,000), the sound was a little better than average. If you could not hear the difference (again, EVERYONE in the room when I was there could clearly hear a HUGE difference), you should get your hearing checked!
They played plain old 16bit digital or DSD transcoded to PCM on that rig, hardly a way to present SACD. And finally, I know that reel to reel tape sounds better than most digital, we actually agree on this.
Tube Fan, you really need to get out and hear DXD based recordings. You probably won't give up either tubes or vinyl after listening to it(you are much too emotionally tied to both), but at least it will reset your notions of the current state of the art in digital, instead of you hanging on to a thirty year old memory.
I am beginning to get a clearer picture of why some wax nostalgic over tubes and vinyl, they are very emotionally attached to it. When you are this emotionally attached to something, you psychologically block out everything else(including what sounds better) to maintain that psychological connection. (now putting on my RE coat) Those of us that do not have that connection, don't really "marry" ourselves that closely to any format unless it has a sonic superiority over a previous format. When the next better sounding format comes along, we move on to that. We progress, and are not inclined to wax nostalgic over something when something better comes along. I am also beginning to think there is an age component to this as well.
-
Could we please stay on topic here? Start a new thread and talk about digital vs. analog.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Could we please stay on topic here? Start a new thread and talk about digital vs. analog.
This thread was born out of a debate regarding SS v tubes, digital v. analog. Perhaps you should revisit the original post and familiarize yourself.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.
You are correct Poppachubby that is what this thread is about.
-
Oh and it seems to be another commercial for AudioNote.
-
Sir T
I didn't even know the PS3 was a SACD machine. I just checked the box and it says "playback of Super Audio CD is not supported. Apparently they pulled it from the newer slim machines :-(
Apparently only the 60 and 80 gig versions will play SACD and these were the machines that would also play PS2 games - the new PS3 machines will not play PS2 games (which I think is monumentally stupid) But no one ever said that large companies cared about quality or logic just the bottom line. Here is a list of which PS3 machines play it http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc180147566
There is some rumbling from some Sony Reps that they may be pulling out of SACD. Both from making the hardware and software as they've been losing a lot of money on it. I fear that if Sony pulls out it will end SACD. As this author notes that it was near dead back in 2007 and it has not improved since. SACD sales was propped up because they included it on many budget DVD players and those 400 disc do everything mega changers. So every one of those that sold could be said was a SACD hardware sales but in reality probably less than .01% of the buyers were buying those machines because it had SACD support. Sony seems to have pulled out of including the technology largely I suspect due the horrid sales of the music. And even the sales of SACD music - some of that was propped up here because it includes the regular Redbook version to play in redbook machines. So it would be tough to determine if even SACD sales were truly about the consumer buying it for SACD or buying it because it happened to be the artiest they wanted and the only version the store had. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9680711-1.html
FWIW my dealer seems to prefer the sound of DVD-A over SACD by a significant margin from his level of enthusiasm in our discussion. At least with the machines he has and the software he has. I have not heard DVD-A enough because the stores that carried it seem to drop it so fast. The music selection at all the stores up here - Future Shop, Best-Buy and HMV have pathetic music selections. I have to buy used or online to get any quality music. Classical is almost completely gone from the box chains, Jazz has one rack and only mainstream big well known Jazz artists like krall, Miles Davis, Coltrane, Brubeck and even then only the latest couple of albums or compilations. Best Buy here did not have a classical CD outside of the 5 CD cheapo sets of Mozart and Beethoven.
Strangely HMV was selling a vinyl of Radiohead. But they have both moved into the video game and movie sales.
|