Thoughts on the future of HiFi [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the future of HiFi



Ajani
05-27-2010, 01:13 PM
I need a bit of distraction from real life at the moment, so I figured time for a new thread (actually I may start a few others soon)....

So let me start with my thoughts on the future of HiFi:

I think the folks at Chord Electronics are possibly the most forward thinking persons in HiFi at the moment. The Chordette and a few of Chord's more expensive DACs have a feature that I truly believe will be the future of HiFi – Bluetooth (or some kind of wireless tech)... These DACs are able to access the files directly from your bluetooth enabled cellphone or portable device... Now while I think Chord is crazy to have released such tech years (maybe even a decade) before I can see it being really practical for most persons, I do think it is the logical next step in Music Sever audio... Forget iPod docks with digital outputs, music streamers, HDD music servers, etc... Imagine walking around with your entire music library on a 2TB cellphone/tablet and being able to use wireless to send that info to your home stereo or your friend's stereo (when you visit) and still have that device as the controller for your system... Right now many affordable Music Server options are rather convoluted as you need a storage device, a streamer and a remote... Imagine having your iPhone/Android/iPad/whatever as all 3...

I don't really foresee any other radical change in HiFi... CD will continue to fade out and eventually die, Vinyl will likely still remain a niche market, SS vs Tube is unlikely to be 'resolved', cable debates will continue, planar fans will remain planar fans and box fans will remain box fans... Audio Note will still be a religion (LOL – sorry I could resist a cheap shot at RGA – I'm just kidding though)... The only thing that might gain some traction is Class D amplification – because of the new tech in the NAD M2, which might revolutionize Class D (MIGHT being the operative word)... Oh and expect on-line sales both direct from manufacturers and from used/new dealers to continue to grow...

Any other thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

audio amateur
05-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Yes, i think CDs are a dying species, and I don't believe that they will be a part of the next generation of selling formats. However, there are so many of them and so many CD compatible players, it may take awhile to see that medium go away.

Ajani
05-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Yes, i think CDs are a dying species, and I don't believe that they will be a part of the next generation of selling formats. However, there are so many of them and so many CD compatible players, it may take awhile to see that medium go away.

I think CD players will be gone long before the actual discs are... Since many of us, music server users, buy our music on CDs and then rip it to our HDDs... Until downloads from iTunes, Amazon, etc are all lossless then CDs are likely to keep on selling...

audio amateur
05-27-2010, 03:17 PM
Well that would mostly be Audiophiles then. I don't think your average listener gives a hoot whether it's lossless or not. Especially with such online music streaming options as Spotify and Deezer, music sales are inevitably falling. I really do wonder where the music industry is heading...

Ajani
05-27-2010, 05:47 PM
Well that would mostly be Audiophiles then. I don't think your average listener gives a hoot whether it's lossless or not. Especially with such online music streaming options as Spotify and Deezer, music sales are inevitably falling. I really do wonder where the music industry is heading...

Lossless and high res formats will be more prevalent eventually... MP3 only gained traction as a format for space saving reasons... they are quick to download and easy to store... With 1TB drives available so cheaply and broadband Internet access common, there is less and less need for low res...

Apple's decision last year to upgrade iTunes downloads from 128K AAC to 256K AAC is a clear sign of the direction downloads are going... Even Amazon uses 256K MP3... So the next move will be lossless - which will offer Apple and Amazon a chance to "upgrade" customers purchased songs to lossless for a "small fee" per song (as Apple did with the last upgrade)...

PDN
05-27-2010, 07:42 PM
Yes perhaps in the future the concept of a "disc" will be done away with but let's not discount the pleasure derived from browsing a music store, listening to a few CDs, and then making your purchase. I love doing this and have for years and look forward to it each time. I like to come home, pop in the CD or DVD, and read the liner notes. I don't see CDs and DVDs dying at all for now. Walk into an FYE or Barnes & Noble and there are still thousands of CDs and DVDs being sold. I'm building my collection of SACDs now and love the new format. The market here is for remastering older lousy sounding recorded CDs of earlier classic rock, symphony music, jazz greats, etc. I think the future of multi-channel SACDs is bright and new SACDs are being added daily. Yes I'm middle aged and perhaps when we're all not here any longer, then maybe CDs will fade away. There are still many types of audiophile CD and SACD players still being produced. I look forward to someday upgrading to a new unit but for now, my Marantz Universal multi-channel SACD player sounds fabulous. LPs have long been predicted to fade away and they have not. New turntables are being manufactured everyday. So in my humble and hopeful opinion, music on discs is here for a while yet. Blu-ray is just starting to take off and that's all on DVD disc media.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-28-2010, 06:37 PM
I have to agree with Ajani on one point. Music delivery for the masses absolutely will be in the form of downloads in the future, not disc. High resolution music will come in two flavors, a download, or a disc. Disc still have the advantage in this area, as there is more high resolution music on disc, than there is available for download.

Music servers will also be big, when they can get the prices down so the average Joe can afford it. In the mean time, there is a poor man's server consisting of 1-2TB of storage, and a media player. I currently have 3 2TB drives daisy chained that I have losslessly downloaded all of my music to, 3 TB of actual storage, and 3TB of backup.

High quality USB DAC are also becoming the rage, which is great for the Ipod and any other portable music device.

Vinyl will remain niche, and CD disc will soon be also if it exists at all.

poppachubby
05-28-2010, 09:07 PM
NIche me.

Feanor
05-29-2010, 05:36 AM
I have to agree with Ajani on one point. Music delivery for the masses absolutely will be in the form of downloads in the future, not disc. High resolution music will come in two flavors, a download, or a disc. Disc still have the advantage in this area, as there is more high resolution music on disc, than there is available for download.

Music servers will also be big, when they can get the prices down so the average Joe can afford it. In the mean time, there is a poor man's server consisting of 1-2TB of storage, and a media player. I currently have 3 2TB drives daisy chained that I have losslessly downloaded all of my music to, 3 TB of actual storage, and 3TB of backup.

High quality USB DAC are also becoming the rage, which is great for the Ipod and any other portable music device.

Vinyl will remain niche, and CD disc will soon be also if it exists at all.
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.

I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????

As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.

poppachubby
05-29-2010, 06:19 AM
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.

I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????

As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.


Bill are you kidding?!? 1.5 Mbps is like lightning speed. A typical torrent would come in under a minute I bet. A full discography in ten. I think that's great!! I only have 350 kbps but I am happy with it. My buddy has the package you have and it's stupid fast.

I am making some major moves here at the homestead. My computer will be moving upstairs, to merge with my H/T. I plan on upgrading to a capable BR and CD player, whether that's seperate or not I'm not sure.

Basically I will slowly upgrade my H/T. My 2 channel is approaching a level I can live with. I want to finish retubing the SE40 and then will begin saving for a +$1K TT.

I'm actually excited about it. Lately I have REALLY been enjoying my digital in the H/T. My Jazz DVDs are super fun and sound great. It will mean more time spent enjoying my hobby on the main level of the house. In the summertime, that's important. Sorry about the rambling.

I'll be looking for help from all of you futuristic, sci fi audio types.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-29-2010, 07:14 AM
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.

I understand your boggle. I am very very luck though. I live right across the street from the switch box, and when I had DSL I was getting 6.0mbps, exactly what I was paying for in spite of a lot of people in my area having it. Now I have the 24.5mbps package with fibre optics all the way up to the house, and nobody in the neighborhood has it. I am now getting speeds up to 35mbps, so downloads and streaming are quite a hit in my place.

$100 buck for 24.5mbps?? That is insane. I am paying $45 bucks for that!


I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????

Managed copy has been implemented on Blu ray, but nobody has encoded it on disk yet.


As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.

My collection is mostly classical as well, but I have a fair amount of Jazz and Gospel in the mix. I am on the screeners list for Surround Records and 2L, so all of my new music has been in the form of Blu ray disc. CD is still the biggest part of my collection, and most of it has been ripped and stored on a 2TB drive that I can access anywhere in the house.

pixelthis
05-29-2010, 08:38 AM
there will always be a place for "HI-FI", but the equipment will change.
AS LONG AS there are old farts there will be big honkin amps and speakers,
and antique input sources like records and CD's.
But it will gradually fade, the big explosion of HI FI that got started in
the fifties will eventually disapear.
End of an era, and very sad, really.:1:

Feanor
05-29-2010, 04:21 PM
...

$100 buck for 24.5mbps?? That is insane. I am paying $45 bucks for that!

...
Ain't that the truth. It's really just competition or, more precisely, lack of it.

Two outfits dominate the ISP business around here: Rogers, as mentioned, and Bell Canada. Rogers, which is cable-based, seems to have the technical advantage and can offer much higher speeds than Bell which is DSL. Rogers only just matches Bell's price for similar capacity, (as do a few minor players). But Rogers is the only one with the infrastructure to deliver above 10 Mbps and they charge whatever they like above that level.

RGA
05-29-2010, 05:31 PM
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.

But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of music in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.

It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.

Smokey
05-29-2010, 11:44 PM
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes.

Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D

Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.

If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.

Feanor
05-30-2010, 04:36 AM
Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D

Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.

If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
Ditto these comments. :cornut:

E-Stat
05-30-2010, 07:13 AM
And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.
Unless, of course you have a RCM and take care of your collection. I've used a VPI HW-16 for over twenty five years and have some records that old that still sound pristine.


But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
Everything isn't equal and analog remains superior in some respects to Red Book playback. Having said that, I have replaced a number of my favorite vinyl records with CD counterparts and agree that they most certainly have advantages. The future is high resolution digital. Ironically, the current generation who thinks iTunes is wonderful doesn't want or understand that yet.

rw

YBArcam
05-30-2010, 08:54 AM
I'd have to agree with the last few posters. I don't have a tonne of vinyl experience, but I did just by a record player recently. IMO, a well recorded CD beats vinyl. The clarity and dynamics, it just kills vinyl in these respects. I can only imagine what high res downloads fed to a great DAC would sound like. The problem with CDs is that far too many are not well recorded. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the medium itself, or is simply due to recording techniques which can affect both mediums. I admit, many CDs sound atrocious.

But all I know is that a well recorded CD is convenient and a pleasure to listen to. Don't get me wrong, vinyl is great and some of my records sound fantastic and better than their CD counterpart. Maybe they all do. But I wonder if it's worth the hassle, because in many cases it's not even close to being a night and day difference. Maybe my expectations of vinyl were too high; if I felt it was vastly better then I could easily put up with the inevitable snap, crackle, and pop noises no matter how well you care for your albums, and the needle wearing the grooves on each successive playback (even if you have an RCM, it's still direct physical contact from a hard needle on soft grooves). The cleaning, the getting up and flipping the record over/changing song. Etc. But if it's not always better, or only just, is it worth it?

So surprise, surprise. It all comes down to the care taken in mixing and mastering an album. If the proper care is taken a CD will sound fantastic. If not then it won't. I suspect the same is true for vinyl, only with less glare and a smoother sound vinyl will not exacerbate the harshness of a poor recording. But one can tailor his system to do the same for CD.

I reserve the right to change my opinion after I've put in a lot of hours listening to my vinyl collection, and maybe after I've upgraded to a nicer table and cart. But for now let's just say I'm a little bit underwhelmed.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2010, 09:20 AM
Any comparisons between vinyl and digital have always used the lowest form of digital audio in that comparison. When you compare 24/96khz, 24/88.2, 24/176.4khz. 24/192khz or DXD digital to vinyl, it does not have a chance, even the most pristine vinyl.

Bernie Grundman has said that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look at vinyl. No matter how euphoric vinyl sounds, it is not accurate by any means.

MP3 was never created as a codec for critical listening, it was a codec of portability. Young people today do not critically listen to music, it is a welcome distraction while doing other things.

RGA
05-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D

Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.

If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.

I don't think there are shades of gray when it comes to the sound. There are factors with regards to degrading sound and I think a poor vinyl rig can sound shockingly bad while a cheap cd player can still provided decent cd sound. My Sony mega changer sounds not too bad and it's about as cheaply made as it gets. While I have bought used Dual turntables that some vinyl philes rave about and no they are not better. It takes more expense to get vinyl to where it needs to be to fend off CD.

The best gear reproducing the best sound is from vinyl. Whether it is against remastered cd or SACD. being a slave to measurements doesn't impress me in the least since $199 SS should sound better than the best Single Ended Tube amps - and it's not the case. And people who make the suggestion on forums are usually the people who have never got their ass off the couch and bothered to audition. Instead they read magazines and forums and parrot back what they have read.

I have heard the new Linn top of the line streaming cutting edge replay - the TT3 kills it. Vinyl does not win in the noise floor camp or the occasional pop and click and that will take many listeners out of the game right there - it did for me for a long while because it is noticeably less than perfect. But CD has an awful time with with nuance and getting the entire sound to the fore. Again all of the noise shaping and filtering takes the MUSIC OUT with the bathwater and over time it is highly annoying. The CD player I am reviewing currently is the best I have ever used in my system despite a relatively reasonable price and has zero error correction, or filtering and is by far the most natural digital I have had in my home. It also very likely measures worse than any other type. So be it. I like the guys who actually listen rather than try to impress with spec sheets and sell numbers to the sheep.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2010, 11:06 AM
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.

If what you state is true, then why did Bernie Grundman who is perhaps the best lathe cutter on this planet state that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look towards vinyl? Apparently based on his experience, vinyl does not sound like the original masters it was cut from, and that it "colors" the sound in a way that is appealing to the ears.(complimentary distortion). It is difficult based on his words to label vinyl vastly superior in spite of the the issues with earlier digital recordings, and the relatively low resolution of redbook CD.


But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of tubes in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.

The sonic attributes are not why MP3 has bested CD, it is just what you outlined, convenience, and the ability to download fast and easy.


It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.

If these audiophiles really had the "good ears" then why couldn't they identify that the thing the love about vinyl is its distortions? Whether euphoric or not, it is what it is. So what you are saying is the audiophiles with the "good ears" love distortion. Does not sound like their ears are so good to me.

Feanor
05-30-2010, 11:13 AM
Bill are you kidding?!? 1.5 Mbps is like lightning speed. A typical torrent would come in under a minute I bet. A full discography in ten. I think that's great!! I only have 350 kbps but I am happy with it. My buddy has the package you have and it's stupid fast.

...
Would I kid you, Chad? No, but I guess I lied: today I'm getting more like 2.4 Mbps. Here's my speed result from from Speedtest.net ...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831032898.png

Note that I'm using Odynet in London, here (http://www.odynet.ca/indexa.htm). Their price for "up to 5 Mbps" is C$35/mo; this is no better than Rogers or Bell, but I have the satisfaction of not dealing with either of the corporate gougers.

Tisk, tisk!! What are you Torrentling? Don't you know that most of that stuff is pirated? (If I torrented anything, I won't admit it. :biggrin5: )

Ajani
05-30-2010, 11:18 AM
Would I kid you, Chad? No, but I guess I lied: today I'm getting more like 2.4 Mbps. Here's my speed result from from Speedtest.net ...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831032898.png

Note that I'm using Odynet in London, here (http://www.odynet.ca/indexa.htm). Their price for "up to 5 Mbps" is C$35/mo; this is no better than Rogers or Bell, but I have the satisfaction of not dealing with either of the corporate gougers.

That's really sad... this is what I'm getting in Jamaica:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831041916.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2010, 11:23 AM
I don't think there are shades of gray when it comes to the sound. There are factors with regards to degrading sound and I think a poor vinyl rig can sound shockingly bad while a cheap cd player can still provided decent cd sound. My Sony mega changer sounds not too bad and it's about as cheaply made as it gets. While I have bought used Dual turntables that some vinyl philes rave about and no they are not better. It takes more expense to get vinyl to where it needs to be to fend off CD.

And to take your last thought further, it takes more expense for vinyl to fend off CD, but it could never at any expense sound better than high resolution digital even if its price was far less.


The best gear reproducing the best sound is from vinyl. Whether it is against remastered cd or SACD.

I profoundly disagree here. There has never been a comparison of SACD and vinyl, so you cannot quantify that statement. What comparisons that have been done have been high resolution audio versus vinyl versus the live feed. Vinyl did not win that one at all, at least not among those listeners that participated in the test. At least 10 of those listeners where vinyl fanatics who before the test were certain vinyl would trounce digital easily.


being a slave to measurements doesn't impress me in the least since $199 SS should sound better than the best Single Ended Tube amps - and it's not the case. And people who make the suggestion on forums are usually the people who have never got their ass off the couch and bothered to audition. Instead they read magazines and forums and parrot back what they have read.[/QUOTE]

Feanor
05-30-2010, 11:25 AM
That's really sad... this is what I'm getting in Jamaica:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831041916.png (http://http://www.speedtest.net/result/831041916.png)

INDEED :mad:

Ajani
05-30-2010, 11:29 AM
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.

But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of music in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.

It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.

Of course all the experienced audiophiles and reviewers who OWN (not just rave about) CD and/or SS Amps are not "Real audiophiles" and/or don't have good ears...

It could never be that CD and SS have some actual strengths over Vinyl and Tubes that some persons prefer... Of course not, those persons must just be deaf fools...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2010, 11:31 AM
That's really sad... this is what I'm getting in Jamaica:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831041916.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

That is not a bad speed at all. You should love streaming and downloading!

E-Stat
05-30-2010, 11:41 AM
I profoundly disagree here. There has never been a comparison of SACD and vinyl, so you cannot quantify that statement.
I would agree. One of HP's favorite's is Howard Hanson's The Composer and His Orchestra. Having heard versions of both in his system using the Clearaudio Statement / Goldfinger and an EMM Labs CD-SA SE, I would have to say the digital version was more impressive. I haven't had a chance to visit him with the newer XD-S1 which is said to be better still. Even Madonna's Ray of Light makes the walls disappear on the EMM Labs player with his spectacular system.

rw

RGA
05-30-2010, 12:02 PM
If what you state is true, then why did Bernie Grundman who is perhaps the best lathe cutter on this planet state that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look towards vinyl? Apparently based on his experience, vinyl does not sound like the original masters it was cut from, and that it "colors" the sound in a way that is appealing to the ears.(complimentary distortion). It is difficult based on his words to label vinyl vastly superior in spite of the the issues with earlier digital recordings, and the relatively low resolution of redbook CD.

Because one person does not make the decisions for the vast number of experts who design and build the best turntables and the best digital "replay" players all of which to my knowledge will tell you their best turntables "SOUND BETTER" than their best digital. Accuracy to the spec sheet is all fine and good - but the ear brain is better than any measuring device we have. Most measurements support negative feedback - a premise which is fatally flawed and the best of the best SS designers in blind sessions choose cheaper SE tube designs. If you want to throw the ears out of the equation when evaluating audio reproducers then you win the debate. If we hand select which measurements to count and which to chuck then SS and CD and SACD and newer digital wins. I choose to use ears.

I don't want to turn this into "either or" because I am the person who has always said - "buy it all." There is a lot of music not available on vinyl and in order to listen to it you need CD. And vice versa. So buy both - buy the best your budget will allow. Some vinyl is pitiful and a good CD or SACD will better it. But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD. This is not to say that any given CD or SACD won't beat the tar out of the album on vinyl. It's not that every vinyl will be better than every cd. Sorry for the confusion as it seems I gave the impression in my earlier reply - had not had my coffee this morning.



If these audiophiles really had the "good ears" then why couldn't they identify that the thing the love about vinyl is its distortions? Whether euphoric or not, it is what it is. So what you are saying is the audiophiles with the "good ears" love distortion. Does not sound like their ears are so good to me.

I don't buy it. Euphony, second order harmonic distortion, frequency issues are problems with vinyl and Single ended amplifiers. Trouble is guys with Bryston and CD don't appear to be able to hear the "more" severe issues from negative feedback .

In over 700 amplifier reviews Colloms noted that non negative feedback amps for example suffer some frequency issues and thus one could conclude that they are inaccurate (so what everything is), but noted

" It was almost uncanny how this zero-feedback pairing allowed more of the natural vitality and characteristic signatures of notes to be replayed, especially their beginnings and endings. It's as if other components blur these nuances. Well, they may be nuances, but they somehow tell us so much more about the quality of the instrument and of its playing.

Let's consider the outrageous proposition that corrective feedback is fundamentally unmusical. In my reviews, I have observed that high-feedback amplifiers---which have an inherently limited open-loop bandwidth---suffer what is commonly called "midrange glare": a hardening of and forwardness in the upper midrange. Amplifiers with wider open-loop bandwidths have less of this, or their "projection" moves up to the mid-treble. Low-bandwidth, high-feedback designs can end up sounding "dark," even significantly colored in the midrange." http://stereophile.com/reference/70/index3.html

He also noted that most of the top SS and tube makers have been moving to lower the negative feedback. Rather than wait for the likes of Krell and Levinson and ARC and all these makers to finally figure out that zero feedback is vastly better I would rather start by listening to the makers who have already figured it out. It sounds better and it's very likely less expensive.

I'll take frequency response issues since EVERY speaker and EVERY room will impact frequency not to mention the way the human ear and just tilting the head will effect frequency response. The added noise floor is generally not heard at the listening position with music playing. It is filtered out. Everything else in music replay is gutted by CD and SS to get rid of this noise and to flatten frequency which won't matter since the speakers are far worse than the SE amplifiers in distortion or frequency in most all cases. But because people seem to read spec sheets and don't listen to a lot of different kinds of gear they miss what it is Colloms is talking about that is lacking in SS. And CD is a similarly designed concept where error correction is similar to feedback. It is so very very apparent on leading edge and decay of instruments that it sounds "broken." Yes a Bryston or like amp have practically zero noise (I had one in my system) and it's as clear and crisp as it arguably gets. It's also completely unnatural.

E-Stat
05-30-2010, 12:05 PM
INDEED :mad:
My performance lies between.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/net.jpg

rw

E-Stat
05-30-2010, 12:14 PM
But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD.
As a point of reference, exactly what systems are we comparing? Don't get me wrong - I have two vinyl playback systems and have content going back to 1969 when I started this game.

rw

RGA
05-30-2010, 12:27 PM
Of course all the experienced audiophiles and reviewers who OWN (not just rave about) CD and/or SS Amps are not "Real audiophiles" and/or don't have good ears...

It could never be that CD and SS have some actual strengths over Vinyl and Tubes that some persons prefer... Of course not, those persons must just be deaf fools...

Every audiophile/reviewer I have met that owns a premium turntable rig and a premium CD player/SACD machine has said they prefer their vinyl rig. Every single time. I have heard a few premium SACD machines and they "impress" me. But I have to agree with Bob Neill that the CD player he reviewed in the end beat one of the best SACD machines available at the time - and he has not changed the stance with the newer SACD machines. Forget vinyl - with the right cd player I am not convinced that SACD sounds better. The recording may in fact be better (which no doubt it is) but the replay devices have not been and from the consumer side of it that is what matters. Same for CD over vinyl. That said there are very very few cd players designed like the one that Bob Neil reviewed so for the larger "market" when you only have 2-3 manufacturers in the entire industry making them that way then until you have heard a better example of it you have not heard CD remotely sound the way those players reproduce CD - period. How many CD players have you heard that have no correction and no digital or analog filters. Until you have you have not heard CD reproduced in this way or IMO this good.

I am very impressed with Linn and Meridian's Soolos. They sound far better than most CD players I have heard and offer HUGE user friendliness and convenience. And they will get better and cheaper very soon. I am ALL FOR this stuff. And it sounds better than a lot of vinyl replay systems no doubt. Still I have not heard it yet beat the best vinyl systems I have heard (though to be fair those vinyl rigs cost significantly more dollars than the likes of the Meridian/Soolos or Linn set-up). And of course vinyl is a much bigger pain in the arse. So practically speaking it may be good enough to go this route.

I don't believe that people who have heard the best Single Ended amps and the best vinyl would choose CD or SS(of the non SE variety) would make those choices. And if so then I don't trust their hearing ability. If that sounds like I'm a pompous jerk so be it. I can't believe people can't hear what should be very bleeding obvious. Even the guys who design the best SS amplifiers in the business are moving to lowering feedback - they know it sounds better too - but it is more expensive and they can't sell measurements because they get worse. People are slaves to numbers. More Horsepower, bigger breast size, higher torque, more watts, more damping factor, more mega pixels, whatever. In themselves they don't equate to better quality.

RGA
05-30-2010, 01:06 PM
As a point of reference, exactly what systems are we comparing? Don't get me wrong - I have two vinyl playback systems and have content going back to 1969 when I started this game.

rw

Here in lies a vast difficulty in making comparisons. For example the best overall sound I have heard was the new Audio Note TT3 reference player in an all Audio Note system of stupid prices. But it was the best sound I have heard. Playing back several different vinyl pieces. The DAC 5 sig at $76k connected to a Philips Pro device is also the best CD replay I have heard (both should be at these prices I grant you). The vinyl sounds better than the digital. Like it or not, RGA is a fanboy or not, the DAC 5 is widely considered to be "one of" the very best sounding players that CD is capable of. You can make arguments for others but it is without question in the "running" as the best CD reproducers available. The turntable rig sounds better and the manufacturer says the same - as did Linn with their best table bettering their digital.

Going off brand presents far more difficulty. For instance I could take a Clearaudio or a Rega player and connect it up to my stereo and it may very well be that I could prefer an EMM Labs (which also is considered to be one of the very best in the world in designing CD replay - I know people who went from Audio Note to EMM Labs so IME it had to be outstanding and that is what I heard at CES). With the Clearaudio/Rega example they make noted players but in a mix and match set-up more and more becomes less and less controllable to get a great match. The phono stage or the preamplifier's phon stage may not be up to the task of getting all it can from the rig. It is "easier" to make the comparisons with companies that make both CD and turntables and IMO LINN, Rega, Audio Note turntables sound better than their CD and digital. Bringing in off brands then brings us to possible mismatches where anything goes. I have heard the DAC five in a non Audio Note system and it sounded pretty bad. Best I have heard to pretty bad illustrates that system matching is absolutely critical.

So I leave it to the manufacturers - and compare the best set-ups they can muster VS the best set-ups from a vinyl front end and the latter has won the day. I realize there are "pitfalls" in this and that is why I highlight it here. It ends up always coming back to the loudspeakers because you can have a great speaker and a medium quality vinyl front end that will sound better than the best digital in the world held back by medium speakers or amplification (as was the case with the DAC 5).

I think it is FAR harder for most of the people reading these threads to make good comparisons with top vinyl replay because very few dealers carry any of it. Or tubes or SET. People get the most experience with what is available to them. Even in a "rich" city like Vancouver there are not many dealers carrying quality vinyl replay or Single Ended amplifiers or even tube amps. Some carry one or two lines of turntables - Clearaudio(not their better ones), Rega and Project, MMF but this is not really indicative of what vinyl is all about. It scratches the surface to use a bad pun.

Very few dealers are as good as Soundhounds in Victoria BC that has some of the best of all technologies. They carry the Linn and Meridian/soolos streaming systems and they're very very good. I have no problem with people saying they flatten CD sound - they do to many (which may be why Linn stopped making cd players). They also sell top flight CD replay in Audio Note, Meridian, and they also sell top flight vinyl, Linn, Audio Note, among others. And then the SS amps from Bryston, Classe, Musical Fidelity, McIntosh(and tube), Meridian, Sim Audio etc. And then tube amps, Audio Note, Octave, McIntosh, Wyatech, ASL. Then the variety of speakers, Quad, Magnepan, Audio Note, Meridian, Dynaudio, Paradigm, Harbeth, Sonu Faber, B&W, Paradigm, etc.

It allows people to get a sense of what a $500 turntable is doing and a $5k or $20k turntable is doing and what a variety of different kinds of digital technologies are bringing to the table.

Lastly I say again I am not "against" the new technologies - I would like something like the Soolos myself - not against at all - I say again I have an ipod in the car - there is a difference between what I have heard as the "best sound that I have heard" versus the practicalities of ease of use and downright price. As much as I like the TT3 I will never be able to afford it so in a sense the argument is moot anyway!

audio amateur
05-30-2010, 01:20 PM
Check out the upload speed :D:D
I know this doesn't count, I'm using a computer at school...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831129246.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2010, 03:26 PM
Check out the upload speed :D:D
I know this doesn't count, I'm using a computer at school...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/831129246.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

I must admit, I have never seen a situation where the upload speed is faster than the download speed. That is really new and unique.....

emaidel
05-30-2010, 04:44 PM
CD's sound better than vinyl.

Vinyl is "warmer" and more "lifelike" than CD, and therefore better.

Seems we've been down this road a few times before...

I'm definitely in the CD camp, though I've got plenty of some pretty horrible sounding discs. Still, when I get something like the Mobile Fidelity CD remaster of Santana's "Abraxas" and feel as if I"m listening to the recording for the first time, then I know there's an advantage to CD's. As anyone who owns it know, the original CD of "Abraxas" is horrible.

Likewise, the MoFi SACD remaster of Eric Clapton's "461 Ocean Boulevard" is quite an ear-opener. The original LP sounded downright lousy (I never owned the CD), but the new SACD remaster sounds markedly superior in all respects, again like listening to the album for the first time.

So, CD's and SACD's certainly can - and do - sound better than LP's. Sometimes.

On the other hand, when it comes to classical music, I'm a hands-down supporter of the CD or SACD format over vinyl. NO classical LP that I own comes remotely close to sounding as good as the best sounding CD's and SACD's in my collection. It will be a sad day in my household when - and if - CD's and SACD's disappear.

Ajani
05-30-2010, 08:03 PM
Every audiophile/reviewer I have met that owns a premium turntable rig and a premium CD player/SACD machine has said they prefer their vinyl rig. Every single time.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything; since most persons who own both a Vinyl rig and a CD/SACD Player don't spend similar amounts on them... Usually one is the main source and the other is used for more occasional duties... So both sources may be "premium" but the turntable may be far more expensive (higher quality) than the CD player... Also, a person who prefers vinyl is more likely to own both a TT and a CDP, than a person who prefers CDs. The reason being that a Vinyl fan may buy a CDP simply because he can't find a lot of music he likes on Vinyl. Whereas a CD fan can find almost anything on CD, so he has little/no incentive to own both rigs...


I am very impressed with Linn and Meridian's Soolos. They sound far better than most CD players I have heard and offer HUGE user friendliness and convenience. And they will get better and cheaper very soon. I am ALL FOR this stuff. And it sounds better than a lot of vinyl replay systems no doubt. Still I have not heard it yet beat the best vinyl systems I have heard (though to be fair those vinyl rigs cost significantly more dollars than the likes of the Meridian/Soolos or Linn set-up). And of course vinyl is a much bigger pain in the arse. So practically speaking it may be good enough to go this route.

There in lies a major issue I have with the belief that 'real audiohpiles' use vinyl and tubes... If we limit the discussion to State of the Art equipment then it is certainly conceivable that persons with unlimited budgets may consistently choose Vinyl and Tubes. However, that is not the reality for most audiophiles. We have to choose based on what performs best within our budget. Competent SS and digital can generally be had much cheaper than competent tubes and vinyl.

In fact lets take this line of thought a step further: so many audiophiles show utter contempt for the iPod and claim that it has destroyed music, young persons aren't interested in sound quality and other such BS... Here's the challenge: put together a TT/Tube setup that sounds better than an MP3 player of the same price... Forget even convenience like portability (since the TT/Tube setup would fail immediately), just compare sound quality at a comparable price... And note: no nonsense like scouring A'gon for vintage TT and Tubes and then putting in 18 hours of work to repair them. New gear versus new gear (cuz if you go used, then you need to compare to a used MP3 player - which can be had for like a dollar on ebay)... For persons on a truly limited budget, there is nothing comparable to an MP3 player + it can easily be upgraded by ripping your music to lossless and buying a decent set of earbuds..


I don't believe that people who have heard the best Single Ended amps and the best vinyl would choose CD or SS(of the non SE variety) would make those choices. And if so then I don't trust their hearing ability. If that sounds like I'm a pompous jerk so be it. I can't believe people can't hear what should be very bleeding obvious. Even the guys who design the best SS amplifiers in the business are moving to lowering feedback - they know it sounds better too - but it is more expensive and they can't sell measurements because they get worse.

Like?


People are slaves to numbers. More Horsepower, bigger breast size, higher torque, more watts, more damping factor, more mega pixels, whatever. In themselves they don't equate to better quality.

I thought we were talking about HiFi.

E-Stat
05-31-2010, 05:55 AM
Here in lies a vast difficulty in making comparisons.
Do I gather correctly in this novelette that you have not compared the same recording on vinyl vs an exceptional SACD player? Why limit your choices to only companies that produce both?

E-Stat
05-31-2010, 05:58 AM
I must admit, I have never seen a situation where the upload speed is faster than the download speed. That is really new and unique.....
The IT department gets all the fun toys. :)

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-31-2010, 11:53 AM
Four years of intense education on the ear/brain mechanism teaches me that our ears are the worst measuring devices. Great at determining what is good or bad sounding, but not great measurement devices.


Because one person does not make the decisions for the vast number of experts who design and build the best turntables and the best digital "replay" players all of which to my knowledge will tell you their best turntables "SOUND BETTER" than their best digital. Accuracy to the spec sheet is all fine and good - but the ear brain is better than any measuring device we have. Most measurements support negative feedback - a premise which is fatally flawed and the best of the best SS designers in blind sessions choose cheaper SE tube designs. If you want to throw the ears out of the equation when evaluating audio reproducers then you win the debate. If we hand select which measurements to count and which to chuck then SS and CD and SACD and newer digital wins. I choose to use ears.

He may not make decisions for turntable designers, but he does the best mastering on this planet for what those designer will play on those turntables. If he says that vinyl is not accurate, you can bet your best pair of shoes he is correct. Doug Sax, another expert mastering engineer has also said the same things that Bernie Grundman has said, so with two of the best mastering and cutting engineers saying the same thing, I basically except what they say as truth. They should know, they cut the lathe vinyl is stamped from. There assessment is not based on measurements, it is based on listening to the vinyl, digital, and the master tapes both came from. So, if the vinyl is not accurate, then no turntable on this planet will make it so, regardless of cost.

I would like for these designers to sit and listen to the master analog tape, and compare that to what their best turntable can do with the vinyl disc. I am sure they would be very shocked at what they hear...I am sure of it!



I don't want to turn this into "either or" because I am the person who has always said - "buy it all." There is a lot of music not available on vinyl and in order to listen to it you need CD. And vice versa. So buy both - buy the best your budget will allow. Some vinyl is pitiful and a good CD or SACD will better it. But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD. This is not to say that any given CD or SACD won't beat the tar out of the album on vinyl. It's not that every vinyl will be better than every cd. Sorry for the confusion as it seems I gave the impression in my earlier reply - had not had my coffee this morning.

As an audio engineer(I am putting that cap on) the "best" sound is a subjective opinion. The most "accurate" sound on the other hand is totally objective, and excludes our personal biases. Either the end product sounds like the master, or it does not. Best for you may not be the best for me, that is the subjective personal nature of that perspective. The combination of SET and vinyl would not be an accurate representation of even a analog recording, as the amp would add its own sound onto what is already there. The vinyl is already different from the master, so its inaccuracy is already established. From your posts I gather that euphoria is more important to you than accuracy, and I am quite frankly the polar opposite of that.




I don't buy it. Euphony, second order harmonic distortion, frequency issues are problems with vinyl and Single ended amplifiers. Trouble is guys with Bryston and CD don't appear to be able to hear the "more" severe issues from negative feedback

I would say the issues of negative feedback are probably benign to our hearing and the issues of euphony are not. You don't really hear the issues of a negative feedback until the system becomes unstable via clipping. The only other disadvantage is that a signal goes from clean to distorted much quicker than with the gradual nature of a non feedback design. When operating normally(or in well designed amp using negative feedback) you don't hear the effects of negative feedback.

And keep this in mind about Bryston. They have come a long way from the 4B(which is your reference), and the amps they design now would trash the 4B in terms of sound quality.


In over 700 amplifier reviews Colloms noted that non negative feedback amps for example suffer some frequency issues and thus one could conclude that they are inaccurate (so what everything is), but noted

" It was almost uncanny how this zero-feedback pairing allowed more of the natural vitality and characteristic signatures of notes to be replayed, especially their beginnings and endings. It's as if other components blur these nuances. Well, they may be nuances, but they somehow tell us so much more about the quality of the instrument and of its playing.

So is he claiming that all negative feedback amps are the same? Doesn't he understand that negative feedback amps are all over the map in how much negative feedback is actually used? Could it also be that the Cary design wasn't really designed for negative feedback, and would sound worse when engaged? His quote does not really reveal anything to me..his approach is not very scientific. Take not of the comments by Ken Stevens the President of Convergent Audio Technology. He makes the exact same point I am making.


Let's consider the outrageous proposition that corrective feedback is fundamentally unmusical. In my reviews, I have observed that high-feedback amplifiers---which have an inherently limited open-loop bandwidth---suffer what is commonly called "midrange glare": a hardening of and forwardness in the upper midrange. Amplifiers with wider open-loop bandwidths have less of this, or their "projection" moves up to the mid-treble. Low-bandwidth, high-feedback designs can end up sounding "dark," even significantly colored in the midrange." http://stereophile.com/reference/70/index3.html

This sounds like he is just mixing all negative feedback amps into one great big mush of generalizations. What about SS amps that use low negative feedback?


He also noted that most of the top SS and tube makers have been moving to lower the negative feedback. Rather than wait for the likes of Krell and Levinson and ARC and all these makers to finally figure out that zero feedback is vastly better I would rather start by listening to the makers who have already figured it out. It sounds better and it's very likely less expensive.

What is better to us is more likely a combination of our own personal likes and prejudices.


I'll take frequency response issues since EVERY speaker and EVERY room will impact frequency not to mention the way the human ear and just tilting the head will effect frequency response.

So you will except frequency aberrations all the way through the chain? Not me! A room and a speaker can be corrected with room treatments and EQ, but an amplifier cannot. If it has frequency aberrations, you just have to live with them. I don't usually listen to music with my head tilted, so I do not think that is apart of the equation at all.




The added noise floor is generally not heard at the listening position with music playing. It is filtered out.

That masking occurs only as long as the music is louder than the noise. Once the music drops down near the noise floor, it becomes very audible at any distance especially with very efficient speakers. If I record music in DXD and transfer it to vinyl, the noise floor will be much higher than the DXD recording. If I use all of the dynamic range of DXD, you will certainly hear the noise floor even in the presence of low level music on vinyl. Neither vinyl or analog in general has the dynamic range of DXD, so its noise floor will be much higher than digital DXD.


Everything else in music replay is gutted by CD and SS to get rid of this noise and to flatten frequency which won't matter since the speakers are far worse than the SE amplifiers in distortion or frequency in most all cases.

I will give you on the frequency response, but your distortion comment I cannot. A well designed speaker will have very low distortion until you push it. A SET amp has a lot of distortion even when operating comfortably.


But because people seem to read spec sheets and don't listen to a lot of different kinds of gear they miss what it is Colloms is talking about that is lacking in SS.

So his opinion triumphs all?. I don't think so. His opinion reflects his likes and biases just like everyone else's do. Tubes and SET both change what is heard on the master tape, and one can argue much more than SS amps do. Both have distinct sonic characteristic which are not all the same, and the same could be said for SS designs. Not all tube designs are a like, and not all SS designs are all alike, and therefore no generalization can be attributed to either. Not all SET and tubes designs will sound better than SS designs, and not all SS designs will sound better than tubes. Blanket generalization don't sit well with me based on these facts.


And CD is a similarly designed concept where error correction is similar to feedback.

Error correction in digital audio is not audible. That has already been proven.


It is so very very apparent on leading edge and decay of instruments that it sounds "broken." Yes a Bryston or like amp have practically zero noise (I had one in my system) and it's as clear and crisp as it arguably gets. It's also completely unnatural.

I have never heard the leading edge and decay of instruments to sound broken as a result of error correction. Error correction is only necessary when an error occurs, and the process is completely inaudible. I have created burned CD discs with known digital errors, and have never heard what you describe when the error was detected and corrected by the system( a light goes on when digital correction came into play).

Once again, your comparison between analog and digital audio is based on the CD, and not true high resolution audio. It is akin to comparing MP3 to 3" analog tape with Dolby SR, as in no real comparison. Once the sampling and bit rates go higher than CD, analog can no longer compete at any level, and at any price.

The differences(not better or worse) between SS amps and tube and SET amps involves a lot of complicated and complex psychoacoustical related issues that cannot be defined by the generalizations that you are using. Why SET and Tube designs can sound better to some has to do with artificial things it does to the signal in reference to harmonics. The broken effect you describe with SS only occurs when the signal is pushed into distortion. If it is not, it doesn't occur. Tube and SET has even order distortion which sounds pleasant to the ear. SS designs have odd order distortions which are not pleasing to the ear, but only occur when the amp is pushed into distortion. When operating normally, this distortion is not audible to the ear. The even order harmonics of tube and SET designs is always present, and that leads to the euphoria, and the idea that it sound better. Euphoria does not equal accuracy. It is akin to sugar water as opposed to just plain water.

I guess my best analogy to this would be my original recording is lemon water. A tube or SET playback of my recording adds sugar to this lemon water. It may taste better, but it is not the lemon water I poured.

RGA
05-31-2010, 03:46 PM
That doesn't necessarily mean anything; since most persons who own both a Vinyl rig and a CD/SACD Player don't spend similar amounts on them... Usually one is the main source and the other is used for more occasional duties... So both sources may be "premium" but the turntable may be far more expensive (higher quality) than the CD player... Also, a person who prefers vinyl is more likely to own both a TT and a CDP, than a person who prefers CDs. The reason being that a Vinyl fan may buy a CDP simply because he can't find a lot of music he likes on Vinyl. Whereas a CD fan can find almost anything on CD, so he has little/no incentive to own both rigs...

I agree with you if the audiophiles grew up on vinyl - I would say people in their mid 30s down like me that largely grew up on CD and SS would be another matter. Vinyl is making a resurgence over the last several years in sales growth (which isn't saying much) but nevertheless it is growing at almost an annual exponential rate. There are thousands of albums on vinyl that are not on CD. But of course most are back catalog. But even new artists that come out with Vinyl and CD releases often put an extra song or two on the vinyl release - I have a Jewel album that contains a couple of extra tracks. Phil Collins had different backing music on British releases on vinyl that were not on western prints. Some artists like Madonna came out with Hard Candy (yeah I know) but it included the 12 inch version of one song and also the CD for a couple bucks more than just the cd itself. There are non sound reasons to purchase vinyls like the superior cover art and often better liner notes. So I agree there are non "sonic" reasons that people buy vinyl.



There in lies a major issue I have with the belief that 'real audiohpiles' use vinyl and tubes... If we limit the discussion to State of the Art equipment then it is certainly conceivable that persons with unlimited budgets may consistently choose Vinyl and Tubes. However, that is not the reality for most audiophiles. We have to choose based on what performs best within our budget. Competent SS and digital can generally be had much cheaper than competent tubes and vinyl.

In fact lets take this line of thought a step further: so many audiophiles show utter contempt for the iPod and claim that it has destroyed music, young persons aren't interested in sound quality and other such BS... Here's the challenge: put together a TT/Tube setup that sounds better than an MP3 player of the same price... Forget even convenience like portability (since the TT/Tube setup would fail immediately), just compare sound quality at a comparable price... And note: no nonsense like scouring A'gon for vintage TT and Tubes and then putting in 18 hours of work to repair them. New gear versus new gear (cuz if you go used, then you need to compare to a used MP3 player - which can be had for like a dollar on ebay)... For persons on a truly limited budget, there is nothing comparable to an MP3 player + it can easily be upgraded by ripping your music to lossless and buying a decent set of earbuds..

No argument from me - I am 100% with you. I was convinced by vinylphiles that any entry level player would beat CD at 10 times the price. You've been around on forums long enough to have read those claims. So I thought what the hell let's buy a Rega P2 (my NAD 533 was a Rega P2 made by Rega for NAD - basically it was a different colour and said NAD) same thing. And at around $500 I was not at all convinced that it, along with a very popular very highly praised Shure M97xE cartridge, was better than most any similarly priced good digital front end. Though it often showed glimpses of better sound. For instance the odd record that I had where I also owned the same CD (I have a bucket of them know as I have bought vinyl versions of most of my CD collection in part to make comparisons and in part because I want the best version of the album (whether CD or vinyl) and many are rather similar especially new vinyl that were basically digital transfers.

To your point though I am not in the camp that says iPod has destroyed music. The iPod if you think about it is a glorified walkman. It is essentially a device to take music with you on the go. You could not put a vinyl/tube system that would compete with a walkman in the 1980s and you still can't today.

I say again - I am not in the either or camp. I believe you should buy both if you want the best recording of the music. Some people buy 20,000 albums which to me is just silly since you are never going to listen to that many a second time through. There isn't that much music that I like. So If I am sitting with a bunch of Ray Charles or Johnny Cash, or whoever albums I want the ones that sound the best. If it sounds better on CD great, if it sounds better on vinyl great - that's the one I want to listen to. Or if there are singles available on vinyl for DJs that never came about on CD or vice versa that is interesting as well.

The definition of competent is subjective. I consider the Sugden A21a to be the entry point of "good" sound. Sound that I could live with over the long haul on a budget. It's $2,500+. Someone might consider a Bryston Preamp and Bryston 4BSSt to be good - I think it brittle crap and it's no wonder why so much music sounds so bad - the engineers use this terrible sounding gear to record stuff with. Uggh. Any engineer using it has lousy hearing period end of discussion. So anyone calling them experts has no clue.

Vinyl is an expensive proposition - the tables and arms and carts of quality you're probably looking at the $1,500. On the flip side used vinyl is cheap. But so are CD's - pawn shops sell them 5 for $10. Mp3 is free with bittorent in Canada(legal) and America - if you don't get caught you're fine.

RGA
05-31-2010, 03:51 PM
Do I gather correctly in this novelette that you have not compared the same recording on vinyl vs an exceptional SACD player? Why limit your choices to only companies that produce both?

I did auditions years back when SACD was fairly new. It didn't impress me in itself on any recording nor did it a couple years ago. While vinyl on the same system of the same recordings did. My only issues was that some of the music was foreign to me because SACD had at those times limited selections. The SACD in these cases were Sony's best players. So I don't know how you would rank Sony at SACD. Their top of the line machines seem to be fairly well regarded at those times however.

E-Stat
05-31-2010, 04:32 PM
I did auditions years back when SACD was fairly new. It didn't impress me in itself on any recording nor did it a couple years ago. While vinyl on the same system of the same recordings did.
On what systems did you actually compare the same recording on vinyl vs. SACD?


My only issues was that some of the music was foreign to me because SACD had at those times limited selections.
That would be a definite problem.


The SACD in these cases were Sony's best players. So I don't know how you would rank Sony at SACD.
Not very highly.

rw

RGA
05-31-2010, 05:18 PM
Four years of intense education on the ear/brain mechanism teaches me that our ears are the worst measuring devices. Great at determining what is good or bad sounding, but not great measurement devices.

Agree, and measurements are not good at determining what is good or bad sounding - zero ability in fact.



He may not make decisions for turntable designers, but he does the best mastering on this planet for what those designer will play on those turntables. If he says that vinyl is not accurate, you can bet your best pair of shoes he is correct. Doug Sax, another expert mastering engineer has also said the same things that Bernie Grundman has said, so with two of the best mastering and cutting engineers saying the same thing, I basically except what they say as truth. They should know, they cut the lathe vinyl is stamped from. There assessment is not based on measurements, it is based on listening to the vinyl, digital, and the master tapes both came from. So, if the vinyl is not accurate, then no turntable on this planet will make it so, regardless of cost.

I would like for these designers to sit and listen to the master analog tape, and compare that to what their best turntable can do with the vinyl disc. I am sure they would be very shocked at what they hear...I am sure of it!

Some of these turntables are better than cutting machines. Audio Note is in possession of a great number of master tapes, they cut vinyl, and their top turntable takes the cutting lathe to new heights. It is beyond what is used to cut records.

An important aspect here is the word Accuracy. Crap word. Nothing in audio is accurate and terms like "more accurate" is also dubious unless you have a 100% perfectly accurate solution that you can look to as a basis then you have zippo. Trying to be more accurate to a solution when nobody has the solution to compare how close you got is idiotic. And throwing numbers around and saying well this stereo has flatter response so it is more accurate is also dubious. And it has to match with what is actually heard. For instance a speaker with a 5db dip at 40hz and a 15db dip at 19khz with 3% distortion is technically less accurate than a speaker with a 2db rise at 2khz and 2db rise at 10khz with .05% distortion but the latter may drive everyone listening to it screaming from the room because they sound terribly fatiguing.

You can put 100 top of the field loudspeaker designers with engineer cum laudi degrees in a room and you can't even get them to agree on whether the speaker should be omni-directional, Transmission line, horn, panel, single driver etc. Trust the experts?

I certainly won't argue the technical merits for CD versus vinyl - I am not an engineer but I know enough that the technical merits heavily favour CD. Same with SS and Tube. SACD to CD. The fact that that is completely irrelevant is the issue. As with most things it needs to be addressed in the audibility spectrum.




As an audio engineer(I am putting that cap on) the "best" sound is a subjective opinion. The most "accurate" sound on the other hand is totally objective, and excludes our personal biases. Either the end product sounds like the master, or it does not. Best for you may not be the best for me, that is the subjective personal nature of that perspective. The combination of SET and vinyl would not be an accurate representation of even a analog recording, as the amp would add its own sound onto what is already there. The vinyl is already different from the master, so its inaccuracy is already established. From your posts I gather that euphoria is more important to you than accuracy, and I am quite frankly the polar opposite of that.

The point Colloms made - and by the way there is no one better on the planet in audio engineering than him. No one said vinyl or SET was accurate. That however doesn't mean CD or SS is more accurate. It simply means that some numbers are technically more accurate and some numbers that most SS CD makers rarely publish are glossed over. marketing is a bigger aspect than science and when the science comes from the large "sellers" then science is corrupted. Americans unfortunately have a tough time accepting the notion of a conflict of interest and just believe whatever a biog corporation tells them.






I would say the issues of negative feedback are probably benign to our hearing and the issues of euphony are not. You don't really hear the issues of a negative feedback until the system becomes unstable via clipping. The only other disadvantage is that a signal goes from clean to distorted much quicker than with the gradual nature of a non feedback design. When operating normally(or in well designed amp using negative feedback) you don't hear the effects of negative feedback.

You might say it but it isn't the case according to blind level matched auditions. Even if we just stay with SS - in the blind level matched auditions held at Hi-Fi Choice the Single Ended zero feedback Sugden A21a was chosen by the entire panel over every other SS amplifier in their tests. Colloms has noted the same thing with all of the major established Big Boys moving to lower their feedback. They know as well - but they have to "get there." All of these engineers know how to make an amplifier that exhibits astounding technical specifications. Good sound comes from quality listening and to make decisions that may "unpretty" the spec sheet but decide that it sounds better and NOT make the pure marketing decisions.




And keep this in mind about Bryston. They have come a long way from the 4B(which is your reference), and the amps they design now would trash the 4B in terms of sound quality.

You see now your argument makes no sense. NOBODY in a Double blind test will tell the difference between a 4B NRB and a 28b SST - NOBODY. The difference is at best subtle. The numbers of the original Brystons were Staggeringly good and so are the new ones. My dealer has sold Bryston for years and work with Bryston day in and day out for years listening to every match-up they can. Not one of the people working there actually own it in their own homes. And they carry the SST line-up.



So is he claiming that all negative feedback amps are the same? Doesn't he understand that negative feedback amps are all over the map in how much negative feedback is actually used? Could it also be that the Cary design wasn't really designed for negative feedback, and would sound worse when engaged?

Why not read the whole article. Colloms is an engineer - he was the technical editor of most of the Audio Magazines out there - he measured ALL those amplifiers in great nauseating detail. I think he makes it pretty clear and unlike every other reviewer on the planet has auditioned, and measured, all of the best of them. The correlational factor seems to me to be that "in general" the amps that used less feedback (which he measures) sound better. That doesn't mean that any given amp won't beat any other given amp. Correlations are not absolutes their correlations that will have exceptions.




This sounds like he is just mixing all negative feedback amps into one great big mush of generalizations. What about SS amps that use low negative feedback?

He is not talking about Tubes versus SS he is talking about negative feedback - that indicates to me he is talking about it regardless of whether there are tubes. In fact he does say that in the article which is why he notes that the likes of Krell and Mark Levinson when they make "better" sounding amps they tend to have lower feedback and they don't make tube amps.





What is better to us is more likely a combination of our own personal likes and prejudices.

Look I agree - there are tons of reasons to like one thing over another. However, the vast majority of people who debate these things have not IMO heard the best examples of the technology. Listening to a Rega P3 is not indicative of what vinyl is remotely capable of. Nor is Clearaudio Emotion. They're mediocre examples. Tubes are a little more common but most people listen to one or two of the mainstream brands - which may or may not be very good. I find Cary for example to be sweet but drive shy. A person listening to that will say - nice midrange but not much else and rather mushy sounding. Right they say - that's SET and make a value judgment on the entire technology. I have directly compared two $1300 EL 34 tube based amps with the same preamp and power amp tubes. The Jolida 302B and the Antique Sound Labs AQ 1003 DT. Same price same tube type similar power - completely different sounding amplifiers. Not even REMOTELY in the same ballpark. The Jolida is dark and warm and a little thick sounding. The ASL is fast open and thinner (a little SS like). Depending on which one a person tries their view of tube amps can be wildly different.

SS amplifiers of big power and damping factors and feedback are not wildly different (not enough to really wow me). If you think there is a big difference between the Bryston models then SET amp differences are at least 100,000 times more different. The Grant Fidelity Rita will blow you into next week with all that speed and crackling reserve power anyone could want. And this from a guy who used Bryston in the recording studio for decades. And the Rita is built way the hell better than any Bryston.




So you will except frequency aberrations all the way through the chain? Not me! A room and a speaker can be corrected with room treatments and EQ, but an amplifier cannot. If it has frequency aberrations, you just have to live with them. I don't usually listen to music with my head tilted, so I do not think that is apart of the equation at all.

No because you will accept all the added low grade switches that impact sound with the use of Equalizers. If you think you can hear a difference between a 4b and a 4NRB and you can't hear what adding artificial frequency correctors are doing then I don't get it. The frequency response issues we're talking about is 2db down at 20khz or -.5 db at 23hz. Big deal. Sure if you are using badly matched speaker SETs have issues - but hard to drive loudspeakers are BAD loudspeaker designs so who cares about not driving bad loudspeaker designs? I'd rather avoid those at the outset.





I will give you on the frequency response, but your distortion comment I cannot. A well designed speaker will have very low distortion until you push it. A SET amp has a lot of distortion even when operating comfortably.

SS feedback amplifiers are measured at full power where their distortion is best - they perform very badly at the point of first entry (some mistakingly call the first watt). The error (distortion) begins and is fedback and the distorted sound runs through the circuits over and over - makes the graphs look like same in same out - it is a FACT that they are not. SET amps perform their best at the point of entry and at their lowest power figures. They distort as the volume goes up but again if you have very very easy to drive speakers you will NEVER push these amps to audible distortion.

Consider your own premise. A High efficiency speaker system SHOULD in theory reveal far more NOISE than any LE loudspeaker. And SET amps have the HIGHEST rated distortion (and so do Audio Note CD players for that matter) - so in THEORY, a very high efficiency horn system would let you hear all that awful noise more readily than any other kind of system. No one would EVER connect such high distorting CD players and ADD to that high distorting SET amps to such speakers - and that is precisely what they do and they don't exhibit high noise. At full power SETs stink. At the point of entry they are very very low. Guess where the industry measures - full power - to put SS in the best possible light and SET and tubes and SE SS amps in the worst possible light. They are selling numbers.




So his opinion triumphs all?. I don't think so. His opinion reflects his likes and biases just like everyone else's do. Tubes and SET both change what is heard on the master tape, and one can argue much more than SS amps do. Both have distinct sonic characteristic which are not all the same, and the same could be said for SS designs. Not all tube designs are a like, and not all SS designs are all alike, and therefore no generalization can be attributed to either. Not all SET and tubes designs will sound better than SS designs, and not all SS designs will sound better than tubes. Blanket generalization don't sit well with me based on these facts.

I agree, I like the Sugden SS amplifier more than I like the Jolida or the ASL tube amps mentioned above. I recently reviewed a tube hybrid power amp - that in some respects deifies placement into either camp. Remember I am not saying that one is better than the other I am just saying that the absolute best system I have heard is from a SET vinyl rig. That does NOT mean that every SET vinyl rig won't be beat or even at the same prices or different makes etc. And the one system I hold in that spot is priced such that it is largely moot. A bughatti is better than any car in my price class - but that is moot since what I can afford forces me to make another choice.

Take the Soolos system - I am FAR more likely to be able to afford this than the SET/Vinyl rig I heard. And I would be happy as all get out with it.




I have never heard the leading edge and decay of instruments to sound broken as a result of error correction. Error correction is only necessary when an error occurs, and the process is completely inaudible. I have created burned CD discs with known digital errors, and have never heard what you describe when the error was detected and corrected by the system( a light goes on when digital correction came into play).

There are several aspects here to be clear. Only one aspect of the Audio Note CD player is that it has no error correction. remember the others are no filtering, tube output stage, and zero oversampling. These in tandem is what is being discussed. Only the manufacturer would be able to say which has more and less impact on the resulting sound.




Once again, your comparison between analog and digital audio is based on the CD, and not true high resolution audio. It is akin to comparing MP3 to 3" analog tape with Dolby SR, as in no real comparison. Once the sampling and bit rates go higher than CD, analog can no longer compete at any level, and at any price.

That may be true. I would need to hear it in my system. Can you recommend a commercial playback system. The Meridian Soolos doesn't sound as good as my turntable or the CD player I am reviewing - is there something you know of that is considerably better than that set-up.



I guess my best analogy to this would be my original recording is lemon water. A tube or SET playback of my recording adds sugar to this lemon water. It may taste better, but it is not the lemon water I poured.

I just think you give far too much credit to Solid State that is giving you the Lemon Water. If it truly did give you exactly the lemon water you claim it does then why would the new SST version be "more perfect" that you claimed the first version gave you. perfect sound forever keeps adding to the perfection? Huh?

Some SETs will add sugar some will add a grain of it and some will add 5 spoonfuls. I think I would agree that SETs and tubes and turntables are much bigger offenders at deviating that SS and CD. But then that is why nobody can tell the difference between a $1,000 NAD and an $18,000 Bryston or $30,000 Krell, or tell the difference between a $600 CD player and $20,000 CD player in blind tests. The truth is this stuff sounds a lot more similar than it should given the price differences. Meanwhile, stick and Audio Note CD player in against anyone else and you'll hear the difference in blind tests. SETs - most of them ditto. Good or bad preferable or not, at least there are REAL audible differences between a SET, turntable rigs, and unique CD players.

RGA
05-31-2010, 05:27 PM
On what systems did you actually compare the same recording on vinyl vs. SACD?


The SACD comparison was Martin Logan 2chanel and surround sound with Bryston and EAD and a Linn LP 12. CD player was Cal Labs

I suppose the problem though is that I first have to "like" the sound of SACD in order to bother with spending huge amounts of time with it. I am currently reviewing a $3500 cd player - If you know of a dedicated SACD machine that you feel would better it perhaps I can bring some in to compare. I already have a few top recorded SACD/CD discs in my collection from IsoMike. My turntable rig is in the $5k price range so I could easily get albums of all three. I have numerous albums already on vinyl and CD so buying the SACD version would not be a big deal. It might be kind of fun to do this this summer.

If possible recommend a few SACD players in the $2k-7k range just in case I can't get some from certain makes. I will keep an open mind.

E-Stat
05-31-2010, 06:31 PM
I suppose the problem though is that I first have to "like" the sound of SACD in order to bother with spending huge amounts of time with it.
I think you'll find that high resolution digital can be quite good. You really need to hear an EMM Labs player to fully understand that which it is capable. A used CD-SA can be found in the $7k range.

rw

Ajani
05-31-2010, 07:00 PM
I just think you give far too much credit to Solid State that is giving you the Lemon Water. If it truly did give you exactly the lemon water you claim it does then why would the new SST version be "more perfect" that you claimed the first version gave you. perfect sound forever keeps adding to the perfection? Huh?

Some SETs will add sugar some will add a grain of it and some will add 5 spoonfuls. I think I would agree that SETs and tubes and turntables are much bigger offenders at deviating that SS and CD. But then that is why nobody can tell the difference between a $1,000 NAD and an $18,000 Bryston or $30,000 Krell, or tell the difference between a $600 CD player and $20,000 CD player in blind tests. The truth is this stuff sounds a lot more similar than it should given the price differences. Meanwhile, stick and Audio Note CD player in against anyone else and you'll hear the difference in blind tests. SETs - most of them ditto. Good or bad preferable or not, at least there are REAL audible differences between a SET, turntable rigs, and unique CD players.

I think the sonic similarities between SS and CD are actually evidence that they are indeed far more accurate than Vinyl and Tubes... If any tube amp can sound completely different from another (even in the same price range) while all SS amps sound so similar (regardless of price) then clearly the tube amps are causing all manner of distortions to the original sound...

Line up 10 witnesses of an accident: if all 10 give very similar accounts of the event then you have great confidence of what happened. While if all 10 have wildly different stories then clearly you can have no confidence of what really happened...

Now whether SS and CD manufacturers are ripping you off by selling very expensive gear that doesn't sound substantially different from cheaper gear, or previous models, is another story entirely... But that is not a reason to buy Tubes or Analog; just because each manufacturer will give you their own distorted version of the musical event...

NOTE: I have no issues with persons desire to buy tubes or analog - buy whatever sound good to you is my belief...

poppachubby
06-01-2010, 01:33 AM
then clearly the tube amps are causing all manner of distortions to the original sound...



Huh? Class A tube amps generally have ZERO distortion. I think that's been the hook of Rich's point. He is discussing how similar topologies can have different sounding output.

Feanor
06-01-2010, 04:19 AM
Huh? Class A tube amps generally have ZERO distortion. I think that's been the hook of Rich's point. He is discussing how similar topologies can have different sounding output.
Say what? That is nonsense.

E-Stat
06-01-2010, 05:11 AM
while all SS amps sound so similar (regardless of price)...
We must be hearing different SS amps. :)

rw

Ajani
06-01-2010, 06:44 AM
We must be hearing different SS amps. :)

rw

LOL... I'm just addressing Rich's claim that they do... and showing what I see as the logical conclusion of such an argument...

Personally, I'm not convinced that all SS amps are as interchangeable as Rich claims, but if we take the basic assumption he makes that SS amps are all relatively similar sounding, while tubes vary dramatically... Then clearly one technology is aiming at the target, while the other is just firing random shots all over the place... Which would imply that one is more accurate than the other...

YBArcam
06-01-2010, 07:23 AM
I know it's just a budget amp, but nothing has given me the tightness in bass that the Audiolab 8000S has. Dynamic, really tight, great visceral impact - and great for rock. My Exposure 2010s2 and my old YBA YA201 couldn't give the same effect. Now that might be down to the 8000S's high damping factor and high peak current, and perhaps other aspects of the sound are similar to those other SS amps (I haven't compared closely enough to know for sure). But in my mind there is no doubt it sounds very different to those other two amps because of it's low end performance. That part of the sound really jumps out at me when I'm listening.

And as discussed, negative feedback can be either increased or decreased. And if it has such a large effect on perceived sound quality then surely this ability to tailor it will also lead to different sounding SS amps.

I think there are some definite sonic differences, but perhaps not to the extent that there are with tubes. I'll stick with SS for now, but I definitely look forward to trying out some tube amps.

theaudiohobby
06-01-2010, 09:53 AM
The point Colloms made - and by the way there is no one better on the planet in audio engineering than him. .Colloms is an engineer - he was the technical editor of most of the Audio Magazines out there - he measured ALL those amplifiers in great nauseating detail.

What's Colloms' claim to fame? Countless amplifier reviews? There is a world of difference between an audio journalist, which Colloms evidently is, and a chartered engineer, which he claims to be.

poppachubby
06-01-2010, 12:23 PM
Say what? That is nonsense.

Sorry Bill, little to none. Nonsense? :rolleyes5: Not really. Extreme linearity especially with triode designs is the whole appeal of a class A tube amp. Any tube amp that a knowledgable enthusiast would consider, will most certainly have properly implemented NFB. I doubt if even the most golden eared audiophile could hear any distortion in the well made designs.

NFB in Class A isn't nonsense. Nonsense is thinking that they are all implemented properly or the same. This is what sets good apart from great.

RGA
06-01-2010, 12:46 PM
LOL... I'm just addressing Rich's claim that they do... and showing what I see as the logical conclusion of such an argument...

Personally, I'm not convinced that all SS amps are as interchangeable as Rich claims, but if we take the basic assumption he makes that SS amps are all relatively similar sounding, while tubes vary dramatically... Then clearly one technology is aiming at the target, while the other is just firing random shots all over the place... Which would imply that one is more accurate than the other...

Or have you considered that SS is inherently off the mark because they are SEMI-conductors and not natural voltage amplifiers and that no matter what any of them do they are handi-capped at the outset. I am not a DBT supporter but I DO believe they are good enough at illustrating that differences are not large if not passed. If the difference was massive you would be able to determine the difference 10/10 times or 100/100 times. The less the difference the less your ability to tell them apart. With properly working Solid state nobody can. My issue is with relying on statistical significance and everythingto do with validity - which the proponents never address adequately. Still the differences just are not as that big.

SS was never the issue here actually it was Single Ended topology which can be done with SS - the Sugden A21a is a SET amplifier - SET means Single Ended 'Topology" not Tube or Triode which is usually commonly used because there are so few SS amps out there that it took over. The A21a is the longest selling SS integrated amplifier topology and even in very recent blind evaluations was selected over all the "NEW" amps running against it. A 1968 topology with some newer parts roundly and continuously is chosen as sounding more "real" and more "natural" and more like actual instruments over the Bryston, Rotel, Roksan, MF, Arcam's of the world. And that's the reason it sells for 40 years and all the others have to slap on a new model number every couple of years. Don't need to fix it if ain't broke.

RGA
06-01-2010, 12:57 PM
What's Colloms' claim to fame? Countless amplifier reviews? There is a world of difference between an audio journalist, which Colloms evidently is, and a chartered engineer, which he claims to be.

He is a electroacoustics engineer with honors Oxford University - He founded the company Monitor Audio, he is the go to technical advisor in Court cases to settle matters of electrical engineering, he is the technical advisor to Stereophile, Hi-Fi Choice, and several other magazines who hired the best available.

His works include

High Performance Loudspeakers (John Wiley & also available at Amazon.com, ISBN: 0-470-09430-33) has been in print for 30 years, and is now in its 6th edition. It has been translated into several foreign languages and received a most favourable review in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, Number 1/2. The extensively revised 6th edition was published in autumn 2005. Dr Paul Darlington (appledynamics.com) contributed a new chapter, comprising a radical and refreshing approach to the theory of diaphragms and sound radiation, through a simple model which leads directly to the familiar equivalent circuits. All useful classes of radiator are analysed.

A second book Computer Controlled Test and Instrumentation (Pentech Press ISBN 0-7273-0310-4) published in 1983 is now out of print.

Amplifiers - Technology and Sound Quality, a three hour presentation for the Audio Engineering Society, London, (December 1985). This included formal and informal listening tests. The associated paper was published in Hi Fi News (May 1986) and reprinted by Audio Amateur (USA).

The Technical press, Reviewing and the Loudspeaker Manufacturers. Invited paper, Danish Audio Conference, ‘The Perception of Reproduced Sound’, Denmark, (August/September 1987).

Some Observations on the Results of Objective and Subjective Technical Reviewing Practice in High Fidelity. Invited paper at the Institute of Acoustics Conference, Windermere, UK (November 1991).

Loudspeaker & Headphone Handbook ed. J. Borwick, (Focal Press, ISBN 0 240 51578 1, 3rd edition 2001). Chapter 6, The amplifier/loudspeaker interface.

Improvements in Intelligibility through the Use of Diffuse acoustic Radiators in sound distribution, co-author Peter Mapp, AES 103rd Convention, September 1997.

Diffuse Field Planar Loudspeakers in Multimedia and Home theatre, with Christien Ellis, AES 103rd Convention, September 1997.

Do We Need An Ultrasonic Bandwidth For Higher Fidelity Sound Reproduction? Reproduced Sound 22, Institute of Acoustics, November 2006 reproducedsound.co.uk

Tah - Please tell me one book or ANY publication in engineering you have been involved in. And show us your degree and marks. The only person I am willing to accept as worth "jumping in" is someone who is AT LEAST as noted. If you say Colloms who chaired the Audio engineering society isn't a good engineer then you make no sense.

I respect him because despite his terrific engineering background he listens and keeps an open mind

"I have heard many technically accurate and beautiful sounding audio components and systems which lack sufficient rhythmic expression. While initially impressive, they do not hold your attention for long periods. These are the systems where you keep trying new tracks to see how good it sounds, rather than play that disc through and enjoy the musical performance.

Classic engineering theory remains valuable for design; it helps produce something that's reliable, effective, conforms to basic test and safety standards, with good compatibility to other audio products. But classically taught engineering excellence will not guarantee excellent sound quality.

See the excerpt below from Stereophile article Working in the Front Line.

Reviews have rated both solid state and valve/tube amplifiers as close to excellent. But both these technologies have provided equally indifferent performances in a number of product designs.

Some thermionic amplifiers can sound quite solid state especially if using relatively high loop negative feedback, while low or 'zero' feedback solid state models can sound sweet and valve-like in the expected sense. Amazingly, and for some critics paradoxically, the best of the tube SE, single ended, zero feedback designs have exhibited remarkable subjective 'speed' and vivacity, combining authentic tonality with natural rhythm and dynamic expression. Standard technical assessments cannot predict such variations and judged by conventional test criteria perform relatively poorly."

audio amateur
06-01-2010, 01:28 PM
The associated paper was published in Hi Fi News (May 1986) and reprinted by Audio Amateur (USA).

That's me!! :D :D

frenchmon
06-01-2010, 01:33 PM
Yes perhaps in the future the concept of a "disc" will be done away with but let's not discount the pleasure derived from browsing a music store, listening to a few CDs, and then making your purchase. I love doing this and have for years and look forward to it each time. I like to come home, pop in the CD or DVD, and read the liner notes. I don't see CDs and DVDs dying at all for now. Walk into an FYE or Barnes & Noble and there are still thousands of CDs and DVDs being sold. I'm building my collection of SACDs now and love the new format. The market here is for remastering older lousy sounding recorded CDs of earlier classic rock, symphony music, jazz greats, etc. I think the future of multi-channel SACDs is bright and new SACDs are being added daily. Yes I'm middle aged and perhaps when we're all not here any longer, then maybe CDs will fade away. There are still many types of audiophile CD and SACD players still being produced. I look forward to someday upgrading to a new unit but for now, my Marantz Universal multi-channel SACD player sounds fabulous. LPs have long been predicted to fade away and they have not. New turntables are being manufactured everyday. So in my humble and hopeful opinion, music on discs is here for a while yet. Blu-ray is just starting to take off and that's all on DVD disc media.

I totally feel you in this posting.

poppachubby
06-01-2010, 02:41 PM
My local record shop has a full rig with headphones ready for anyone who wishes to listen to the LP they are considering.

theaudiohobby
06-01-2010, 03:16 PM
He is a electroacoustics engineer with honors Oxford University - He founded the company Monitor Audio, he is the go to technical advisor in Court cases to settle matters of electrical engineering .
Er...no, There is some serious overselling going on here, there is a world electrical engineering outside audio and as far as I can see all the papers and books you listed are in audio related matters. And as far I can see most of the man's fame comes from his tenure as an audio journalist not as an engineer.

If you say Colloms who chaired the Audio engineering society isn't a good engineer then you make no sense.
Err... that's significantly more modest and way different from
The point Colloms made - and by the way there is no one better on the planet in audio engineering than him.

Top audio engineer on the planet, that's pure fantasy.

RGA
06-01-2010, 03:17 PM
I think the sonic similarities between SS and CD are actually evidence that they are indeed far more accurate than Vinyl and Tubes... If any tube amp can sound completely different from another (even in the same price range) while all SS amps sound so similar (regardless of price) then clearly the tube amps are causing all manner of distortions to the original sound...

Line up 10 witnesses of an accident: if all 10 give very similar accounts of the event then you have great confidence of what happened. While if all 10 have wildly different stories then clearly you can have no confidence of what really happened...

Now whether SS and CD manufacturers are ripping you off by selling very expensive gear that doesn't sound substantially different from cheaper gear, or previous models, is another story entirely... But that is not a reason to buy Tubes or Analog; just because each manufacturer will give you their own distorted version of the musical event...

NOTE: I have no issues with persons desire to buy tubes or analog - buy whatever sound good to you is my belief...


Ahh I replied to your other thread first as I was in a hurry - I do understand what you're saying here and agree. I think many tube amps go further away from the musical truth. The fact of the matter is that a high power SS amp typically will drive ANY and ALL loudspeakers with authority (with the odd nutty 1ohm exceptions) where as a tube amp or low power amp SE SS amp like a Sugden simply will not. Anytime an amp is pushed beyond its ability it will clip. lower power amps do that sooner, and Tube amps typically give you that warmer second harmonic distortion which is pleasing to the ear but it is clearly audible as distortion. People tend to be experiential and judge the new gear not their own gear the same way. Take my OTO Phonoe SE. It is not the last word in accuracy - no argument from me. But it has been reviewed considerably differently over the decades and it depends largely on the loudspeaker. With my Speakers I never have to drive the thing into distortion so it never exhibits any audible noise. But a review I read - quite a nice review in the end where the guy said if he were not longer reviewing he would buy it himself - but he was using big hard to drive Thiel speakers and complained that the amp could not control the bass at high levels and could sound strained. Well I certainly don't disagree with his result - but he should have made a note to readers that that is a matching issue not the amps fault. The amp with speakers it is designed for won't have either of those issues - and any consumer looking at a 10 watt amp would obviously have or be prepared to purchase HE loudspeakers.

There is no question that SS measures better under current common measuring techniques, there is no question that SS is easier to match in systems or drive ability of "more" loudspeakers. The reason I mentioned Colloms though is because no one on the planet knows more about measuring equipment than him and yet he is trying to wrestle with the fact that measurements and audibility of the end results are not in perfect congruence. And if they are not then deeper investigation is a must. Until then I can either buy something that measures great and sounds horrible or I can use my ears and shake my head that the measurements are not that good but it sounds oh so right. Since I have to live with the choice I choose the one that sounds right over showing people Soundstage and Stereophile graphs that X is better than Y. That may make one feel they won a debate on an internet forum - fine by me. But they certainly didn't change my perspective in any way whatsoever - they merely wasted their time.

RGA
06-01-2010, 03:28 PM
Top audio engineer on the planet, that's pure fantasy.

That was over the top I agree but let's just say that all of the top audio magazines go to him for technical advice. So at least in terms of the review press - there is no one better. He is also brought in for court cases - so he is considered to be a true expert in the audio engineering field. In other words, he understands ALL concepts and arguments that can be made and can determine the validity of any of those claims. For the purposes of this thread and these arguments - he is factually correct.

RGA
06-01-2010, 03:44 PM
That's me!! :D :D

LOL - nice.

PS ALL - I got this way the hell off track. Frankly I don't care what people buy. I was nto attacking iPods or CD or for that matter SS - I recently bought a SS Rotel RC 1082 preamp and was contemplating buying an Odyssey SS power amp. I just reviewed 300 watt hybrid monoblock power amps. I am not against these technologies as much as my online verbiage is suggesting. And plenty of tube amps I don't much care for. ARC and McIntosh - I would take Heed Sugden, or Technical Brain most recently over the likes of those. I never liked Carver and the one CJ I heard was roundly dissapointing. I also didn't care for several Jadis and Copland and BAT amps (all tube designs).

I think I got trapped here more in a devil's argument situation arguing the position more than the practical element. Indeed, my own OTO uses feedback. I was simply referring to personal experience relating to the absolute top of the range price not a factor gear. I highly doubt anyone on this forum has auditioned the specific gear in the specific room on the specific day - so there is really nothing here to discuss further.

RGA
06-01-2010, 03:57 PM
And as discussed, negative feedback can be either increased or decreased. And if it has such a large effect on perceived sound quality then surely this ability to tailor it will also lead to different sounding SS amps.

I think there are some definite sonic differences, but perhaps not to the extent that there are with tubes. I'll stick with SS for now, but I definitely look forward to trying out some tube amps.

For those familiar with the magazine UHF in Canada they wrote two books - one of them was a technical book covering each aspect of the audio chain. They had a technical guru at the time on their staff, not sure if he is still there, but they also compared amps they reviewed and their technical results and recommended that amps with damping factors above 40 be avoided. Though they still recommend the odd ones that are clearly more than that. I Myself and "impressed" with numerous high power amps. I think though that these discussions tend to be impossible unless we are all actually sitting in the same room and then after the session discuss what it is we heard. There are simply too many products, with different associated gear to wade through. I do however think that people will hear things very similarly when biases are out of the picture.

I recently chose my best 5 rooms above and below $10k at CES and what was interesting was that I chose rooms Like King Sound and Teresonic and Acapella - Three loudspeakers and it so happens that three of our writers own those speakers. They obviously were highly impressed - got them in their home and then said wow - and bought em. The amp or cd player that works best for each of those speakers may not work best for mine. One reason I am not a fan of component reviewing and I find them somewhat awkward to write because while something may sound great in my system it may sound atrocious in yours. I rather system reviews so that the total experience is more transferable to the reader. Dynaudio and Octave are being matched a lot - my dealer picked up both - so if I reviewed an Octave Dyandio system chances are the reader has a good shot at also getting hold of the gear. Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe are also popular matches.

Ajani
06-01-2010, 03:59 PM
LOL - nice.

PS ALL - I got this way the hell off track. Frankly I don't care what people buy. I was nto attacking iPods or CD or for that matter SS - I recently bought a SS Rotel RC 1082 preamp and was contemplating buying an Odyssey SS power amp. I just reviewed 300 watt hybrid monoblock power amps. I am not against these technologies as much as my online verbiage is suggesting. And plenty of tube amps I don't much care for. ARC and McIntosh - I would take Heed Sugden, or Technical Brain most recently over the likes of those. I never liked Carver and the one CJ I heard was roundly dissapointing. I also didn't care for several Jadis and Copland and BAT amps (all tube designs).

I think I got trapped here more in a devil's argument situation arguing the position more than the practical element. Indeed, my own OTO uses feedback. I was simply referring to personal experience relating to the absolute top of the range price not a factor gear. I highly doubt anyone on this forum has auditioned the specific gear in the specific room on the specific day - so there is really nothing here to discuss further.

Agreed... This has gone far off track as this thread is about the future of HiFi and not which technology is best...

I just want to remind you that if you use strong (combative) language then you should expect to be challenged:


All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.

But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of music in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.

It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.

Whether it was your intention or not, you slapped a load of audiophiles/music lovers in the face with such proclamations... Proclamations which are merely your opinion and not fact...

theaudiohobby
06-01-2010, 04:08 PM
Or have you considered that SS is inherently off the mark because they are SEMI-conductors and not natural voltage amplifiers and that no matter what any of them do they are handi-capped at the outset.

Hightlighting the term semiconductor demonstrates a lack of understanding here. Generally, amplification devices including the thermionic valves i.e. tubes as amplification in these devices is governed by their respective transconductance characteristics and neither functions like a true conductor.

theaudiohobby
06-01-2010, 04:17 PM
In other words, he understands ALL concepts and arguments that can be made and can determine the validity of any of those claims. For the purposes of this thread and these arguments - he is factually correct.

That's a bit of stretch, factually correct would suggest that his opinions on issues such as NFB are widely accepted, but that's certainly not the case.

YBArcam
06-01-2010, 04:33 PM
For those familiar with the magazine UHF in Canada they wrote two books - one of them was a technical book covering each aspect of the audio chain. They had a technical guru at the time on their staff, not sure if he is still there, but they also compared amps they reviewed and their technical results and recommended that amps with damping factors above 40 be avoided. Though they still recommend the odd ones that are clearly more than that. I Myself and "impressed" with numerous high power amps. I think though that these discussions tend to be impossible unless we are all actually sitting in the same room and then after the session discuss what it is we heard. There are simply too many products, with different associated gear to wade through. I do however think that people will hear things very similarly when biases are out of the picture.

I recently chose my best 5 rooms above and below $10k at CES and what was interesting was that I chose rooms Like King Sound and Teresonic and Acapella - Three loudspeakers and it so happens that three of our writers own those speakers. They obviously were highly impressed - got them in their home and then said wow - and bought em. The amp or cd player that works best for each of those speakers may not work best for mine. One reason I am not a fan of component reviewing and I find them somewhat awkward to write because while something may sound great in my system it may sound atrocious in yours. I rather system reviews so that the total experience is more transferable to the reader. Dynaudio and Octave are being matched a lot - my dealer picked up both - so if I reviewed an Octave Dyandio system chances are the reader has a good shot at also getting hold of the gear. Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe are also popular matches.

I am just discovering UHF. Your comments a few days ago made me check them out. I took advantage of their offer and bought those two books, along with one copy of their magazine (not the current version) for something like $30. Got it yesterday and I'm reading the magazine now. I'm really enjoying their (his?) approach so far, and it is definitely a more interesting read than most audio mags I've come across to date. Very accessible but informative at the same time.

I think Audiolab sounds similar to Bryston (clean, powerful, neutral) but on a budget. I used the 8000S with PMC TB2i speakers - maybe that's why there was synergy. I loved the sound. But it sounded awesome with my Tannoy F2's as well. I only had the 8000S for a couple of days last year, but I bought a new one just maybe a week or two ago for $550. Tough to beat at that price I think. Great build quality, it feels like it weighs four times more than my 2010s2. I'll be comparing it to my Exposure amp this coming weekend, which has a low damping factor. I think I read it's something like 15 or so. The winner will stay, the loser will go. I'll probably start a thread with my impressions. I'll also be auditioning a few speakers. I'm kind of overhauling everything now, but trying to do this the right way...lots of listening to various matches before I make a call. I might even stick with what I've got, though that is doubtful.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-01-2010, 09:16 PM
Agree, and measurements are not good at determining what is good or bad sounding - zero ability in fact.

Dr. Floyd Toole, John Dunlavy, Jim Thiel, would strongly disagree with you here. Dr. Toole white papers document over 10,000 listeners in double blind listening test show that measurements correlated directly to what sounds good, and sounds bad. Measurements alone do not tell the story, but they are a major criteria in deciding what sounds good or bad.




Some of these turntables are better than cutting machines. Audio Note is in possession of a great number of master tapes, they cut vinyl, and their top turntable takes the cutting lathe to new heights. It is beyond what is used to cut records.

Unfortunately Audio Note does not cut all vinyl, and one could dare say what they do cut probably makes up less than 1% of the total vinyl cut each year. Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax are the go to men in the recording industry when it comes to mastering and cutting vinyl. Even if Audio Notes turntables are better than all cutting machines in the world, you cannot cut a lathe on them, and they cannot make a flawed product sound any better than a flawed product sounds.


An important aspect here is the word Accuracy. Crap word. Nothing in audio is accurate and terms like "more accurate" is also dubious unless you have a 100% perfectly accurate solution that you can look to as a basis then you have zippo.

Accuracy in this case is not 100% perfect. It is getting as close to sounding like the master tape as you can. In this situation my master tapes are 100% perfection, and the source to which copies should be compared, as it is the reference.


Trying to be more accurate to a solution when nobody has the solution to compare how close you got is idiotic. And throwing numbers around and saying well this stereo has flatter response so it is more accurate is also dubious. And it has to match with what is actually heard. For instance a speaker with a 5db dip at 40hz and a 15db dip at 19khz with 3% distortion is technically less accurate than a speaker with a 2db rise at 2khz and 2db rise at 10khz with .05% distortion but the latter may drive everyone listening to it screaming from the room because they sound terribly fatiguing.

You are not really describing accuracy here, you are describing inaccuracy. Keeping things in context here, If I record the Oakland Symphony Orchestra in DXD, and transcode the mix into 24/192khz PCM, it will sound exactly like my master. That is accuracy. When I downcovert it further to 24/96khz only careful listening will reveal a slight loss of air around instruments, that is pretty close to accurate, and to some accurate. When I covert it to analog and master for vinyl, it will sound too rich in the mids, have a truncated soundstage, and in some cases bloated bass when compared to my DXD based master. That is inaccuracy. When I convert it to redbook CD, there is a noticeable loss of air, and truncating of the soundstage, and a noticeable washing of some timbres on certain instruments. That is inaccuracy. When you play this DXD based recording through a tube amplifier, transients are slight blunted and blurred, the mids overly warm and rich, and the highs sound rolled off.(this is a real scenario). That is not representative of what is on my master tape. It may be pleasing to the ear, but it is not accurate when compared to the master file.


You can put 100 top of the field loudspeaker designers with engineer cum laudi degrees in a room and you can't even get them to agree on whether the speaker should be omni-directional, Transmission line, horn, panel, single driver etc. Trust the experts?

But would that put Audio Note, a brand you so richly(no pun intended Rich) lather with glowing comments fall into that catagory as well?

They probably wouldn't agree because each has their own design philosophy that they use to obtain accuracy from their designs. They don't have to agree, they just need to design accurate products. The old adage "there is more than one way to skin a cat" plays heavily in this case.


I certainly won't argue the technical merits for CD versus vinyl - I am not an engineer but I know enough that the technical merits heavily favour CD. Same with SS and Tube. SACD to CD. The fact that that is completely irrelevant is the issue. As with most things it needs to be addressed in the audibility spectrum.

Agreed. And in my experience(and it has been pretty profound and lengthy on this issue) has been I don't care for the sound of vinyl, tubes, and to be quite frank CD as well. Now I will say that I really do like analog sound, and analog 3" tape with Dolby SR noise reduction sounds heavenly, and much better than vinyl, CD, and anything encoded with the lossy formats. I say this not based on any measurements, but based solely on what I have heard in my studio, Disney Studios, Capital Records studios, and Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax's studios(and countless more) over the last 25 years.




The point Colloms made - and by the way there is no one better on the planet in audio engineering than him. No one said vinyl or SET was accurate. That however doesn't mean CD or SS is more accurate. It simply means that some numbers are technically more accurate and some numbers that most SS CD makers rarely publish are glossed over. marketing is a bigger aspect than science and when the science comes from the large "sellers" then science is corrupted. Americans unfortunately have a tough time accepting the notion of a conflict of interest and just believe whatever a biog corporation tells them.

Somehow you have gotten the impression that my conclusions on vinyl, SET, CD and SS are based strictly on numbers. Nope, it is based solely on listening to them, and comparing them on media where I have access to the master files or tapes. The last people in the world I listen to are marketing people(I do work for Disney you know), and people with self interests. However, my experience in the studio has led me to conclude that SS amps allow the sound to get closer to my master tapes, as does CD to an extent. Vinyl and Tubes impart their own signature, even when the source is analog. That has been my experience in 25 years of recording and mixing audio. Now, I do not mind or object when somebody enjoys my mixes with a little salt or sugar sprinkled in, but that is not representative to what is on my file, tape or drive. Now without that reference SET and Tubes would probably sound pretty good, but I do have access to that reference, and that is what drives my opinions.



You might say it but it isn't the case according to blind level matched auditions. Even if we just stay with SS - in the blind level matched auditions held at Hi-Fi Choice the Single Ended zero feedback Sugden A21a was chosen by the entire panel over every other SS amplifier in their tests.

Different location, different test, different equipment, different ears. This does not really convince me of very much. I read Stereophiles review of that amp, and the reviewer did not seem over enamored with the amp. The reviewers description of the sound of the A21a leads me to believe that amps in this double blind probably were not very good sounding in their own right. The funny thing that I found while reading that review is how close the measurements correlated to what the reviewer actually heard. The measurements conclude that this amp can not be partnered with a variety of speakers, and that is a big negative in my book.



Colloms has noted the same thing with all of the major established Big Boys moving to lower their feedback. They know as well - but they have to "get there." All of these engineers know how to make an amplifier that exhibits astounding technical specifications. Good sound comes from quality listening and to make decisions that may "unpretty" the spec sheet but decide that it sounds better and NOT make the pure marketing decisions.

I think it is might presumptuous to say that designers use negative feedback for marketing reasons. There are some very good reason for it or it would not be used. It is also equally presumptious to say that amplifier designers don't listen to what they design. Keep in mind, Colloms has his opinion, others have theirs. His does not cancel out others, and others do not cancel out his. When I draw opinion from others, I balance it off with more opinions from knowledgeable folks. I would be curious what he would say to this question

How bad can feedback designs be when Mr. Colloms could achieve a "dawning" of such fine sounds from zero-feedback amplifiers when he used recordings bearing the imprint of any number of feedback circuits?



You see now your argument makes no sense. NOBODY in a Double blind test will tell the difference between a 4B NRB and a 28b SST - NOBODY. The difference is at best subtle. The numbers of the original Brystons were Staggeringly good and so are the new ones. My dealer has sold Bryston for years and work with Bryston day in and day out for years listening to every match-up they can. Not one of the people working there actually own it in their own homes. And they carry the SST line-up.

I beg to disagree with you, but there is no point in belaboring this. I have heard both amps played through my SC-V's, and clearly there is a improvement in sound quality between the 4B and the 28b SST. Yes subtle, but it is definitely audible. Not going by the numbers, but what I heard. The designs are clearly different, and the 28B clearly sounds better than the 4B at low volume levels, which is where the difference in sound actually shows up quite well.


Why not read the whole article. Colloms is an engineer - he was the technical editor of most of the Audio Magazines out there - he measured ALL those amplifiers in great nauseating detail. I think he makes it pretty clear and unlike every other reviewer on the planet has auditioned, and measured, all of the best of them. The correlational factor seems to me to be that "in general" the amps that used less feedback (which he measures) sound better. That doesn't mean that any given amp won't beat any other given amp. Correlations are not absolutes their correlations that will have exceptions.

This is HIS opinion, not fact. If his correlations are not absolutes, and have exceptions, then he cannot say with any certainty negative feedback is the culprit 100 percent of the time. There are other design perimeters that play a part in the sound quality of any amp.




He is not talking about Tubes versus SS he is talking about negative feedback - that indicates to me he is talking about it regardless of whether there are tubes. In fact he does say that in the article which is why he notes that the likes of Krell and Mark Levinson when they make "better" sounding amps they tend to have lower feedback and they don't make tube amps.

Once again, this is HIS opinion, and cannot be construed as fact, especially since his opinion is not absolute and has exceptions. He is not free of biases, nobody is. One thing I have noticed, is that audio goes through these periodic "this is better" and "less of this makes an amp sound the best". Remember the THD argument? Or how about the slew rate and TIM distortion craze? Well this year it is zero negative feedback designs. I wonder which way the audio wind will blow five years from now.




Look I agree - there are tons of reasons to like one thing over another. However, the vast majority of people who debate these things have not IMO heard the best examples of the technology. Listening to a Rega P3 is not indicative of what vinyl is remotely capable of. Nor is Clearaudio Emotion. They're mediocre examples. Tubes are a little more common but most people listen to one or two of the mainstream brands - which may or may not be very good. I find Cary for example to be sweet but drive shy. A person listening to that will say - nice midrange but not much else and rather mushy sounding. Right they say - that's SET and make a value judgment on the entire technology. I have directly compared two $1300 EL 34 tube based amps with the same preamp and power amp tubes. The Jolida 302B and the Antique Sound Labs AQ 1003 DT. Same price same tube type similar power - completely different sounding amplifiers. Not even REMOTELY in the same ballpark. The Jolida is dark and warm and a little thick sounding. The ASL is fast open and thinner (a little SS like). Depending on which one a person tries their view of tube amps can be wildly different.

You make an excellent point here, and you actually drive a point home that I was trying to make earlier. You cannot make blanket statements when no two products sound the same, are designed exactly the same. And that also stretches to what is good and bad about certain audio technology when it comes to the individual. No two ears hear the exactly the same things, so no one person can decide what is good, that negative feedback properly implemented is bad, or that all SET, SS or Tubes amps sound bad.


SS amplifiers of big power and damping factors and feedback are not wildly different (not enough to really wow me). If you think there is a big difference between the Bryston models then SET amp differences are at least 100,000 times more different. The Grant Fidelity Rita will blow you into next week with all that speed and crackling reserve power anyone could want. And this from a guy who used Bryston in the recording studio for decades. And the Rita is built way the hell better than any Bryston.

You know, I don't mind that you have an opinion on particular things, but it is the absolute statements you make that drive me crazy. I have actually heard the Fidelity Rita, and I agree with your assessment totally, but one to add my own. It imparts a tube like sonic character on anything it reproduces, which why I don't care for tube amps and like SS amps. I also think any amp that flatters a bad recording( the Rita does) betrays accuracy to a high degree IMO.


No because you will accept all the added low grade switches that impact sound with the use of Equalizers.

The equalizers I use don't have switches, it is software based.


If you think you can hear a difference between a 4b and a 4NRB and you can't hear what adding artificial frequency correctors are doing then I don't get it.

Unlike a tube or SET amp, the Audyssey does not color the sound at all.


The frequency response issues we're talking about is 2db down at 20khz or -.5 db at 23hz. Big deal. Sure if you are using badly matched speaker SETs have issues - but hard to drive loudspeakers are BAD loudspeaker designs so who cares about not driving bad loudspeaker designs? I'd rather avoid those at the outset.

Deflection is never an attractive option. So when a SET has a problem driving a speaker, it is the speakers fault not the amp. Oh great........ In trying to get my head around the SET mania a few years ago, I had several amps brought into my studio for some critical listening. I do not remember which model it was, but it was by Cary. It sounded great until you turned up the volume when paired with my SC-V. It sounded great even with the volume up on my custom Klipschorns until some deep bass crept into the mix. Mush would be an understatement. Since those two speakers didn't have any problems with other amps, it couldn't be their fault the amp couldn't drive them.



SS feedback amplifiers are measured at full power where their distortion is best - they perform very badly at the point of first entry (some mistakingly call the first watt).

Hmmm, more generalization not support by facts. The SST models of the Brystons are designed to be distortion free at the first watt, something the 4B was not. And when you actually measure them, the designers were successful with their design approach. Secondly, how often do amps run at 1 watt in the presence of a signal. I would advance not very often.


The error (distortion) begins and is fedback and the distorted sound runs through the circuits over and over - makes the graphs look like same in same out - it is a FACT that they are not. SET amps perform their best at the point of entry and at their lowest power figures. They distort as the volume goes up but again if you have very very easy to drive speakers you will NEVER push these amps to audible distortion.

I hate to bring this to you, but deep bass signals can often push an amp well above 100-200 watts depending on where the volume control is set. I would not consider my Klipschorns a particularly difficult speaker to drive, but the Cary failed miserable in the presence of deep bass. I cannot say that for the Rita, but the guy that owned it was not exactly pushing it all that hard. Loud transients require a lot of power, or it will sound blunted. A amps has to be able to deliver high amounts of power to reproduce sharp high level transients like brass instruments being played using double tonguing techniques. This is where quite a few SET designs fail IMO. You cannot expect a 5-25 watt SET amp to reproduce a clean 20hz at any level above the lowest setting on the volume control, which makes it quite useless for usage in any of my listening rooms.


Consider your own premise. A High efficiency speaker system SHOULD in theory reveal far more NOISE than any LE loudspeaker. And SET amps have the HIGHEST rated distortion (and so do Audio Note CD players for that matter) - so in THEORY, a very high efficiency horn system would let you hear all that awful noise more readily than any other kind of system. No one would EVER connect such high distorting CD players and ADD to that high distorting SET amps to such speakers - and that is precisely what they do and they don't exhibit high noise.

The distortion they add is complimentary, hence the euphoria. Euphoria may mean good sound to some, but not to me. I like accuracy, because coloration changes what I hear when I compare it to the source. IMO distortion is distortion, complimentary or not.



At full power SETs stink. At the point of entry they are very very low. Guess where the industry measures - full power - to put SS in the best possible light and SET and tubes and SE SS amps in the worst possible light. They are selling numbers.

At any occasion a amp may be driven very hard. If it can't take it, it is not very good IMO. The industry actually measures at third power, not full power.


I agree, I like the Sugden SS amplifier more than I like the Jolida or the ASL tube amps mentioned above. I recently reviewed a tube hybrid power amp - that in some respects deifies placement into either camp. Remember I am not saying that one is better than the other I am just saying that the absolute best system I have heard is from a SET vinyl rig. That does NOT mean that every SET vinyl rig won't be beat or even at the same prices or different makes etc. And the one system I hold in that spot is priced such that it is largely moot. A bughatti is better than any car in my price class - but that is moot since what I can afford forces me to make another choice.

Finally you quantified a statement. The best system YOU heard was from a vinyl and SET rig. I would say you probably OD on euphoria listening to that system.


Take the Soolos system - I am FAR more likely to be able to afford this than the SET/Vinyl rig I heard. And I would be happy as all get out with it.


There are several aspects here to be clear. Only one aspect of the Audio Note CD player is that it has no error correction. remember the others are no filtering, tube output stage, and zero oversampling. These in tandem is what is being discussed. Only the manufacturer would be able to say which has more and less impact on the resulting sound.

Since I have heard digital audio without error correction when an error was actually present, I would say in some cases that Audio Note CD player will sound like utter crap when confront with it. Error correction is benign and not audible, and no digital devices should be without it. I have learned the hard way that no disc stamping line is perfect 100 percent of the time when stamping discs. Any player playing redbook CD must use filters, especially anti aliasing filters, or they will sound like hell even with tubes. A player that uses no oversampling has to use brickwall filters. They ring!



That may be true. I would need to hear it in my system. Can you recommend a commercial playback system. The Meridian Soolos doesn't sound as good as my turntable or the CD player I am reviewing - is there something you know of that is considerably better than that set-up.

Since I do not know what you are using, that is an impossible question to answer.




I just think you give far too much credit to Solid State that is giving you the Lemon Water. If it truly did give you exactly the lemon water you claim it does then why would the new SST version be "more perfect" that you claimed the first version gave you. perfect sound forever keeps adding to the perfection? Huh?

I don't think I was referring to SS as lemon water. I was referring to my master files and tapes.


Some SETs will add sugar some will add a grain of it and some will add 5 spoonfuls. I think I would agree that SETs and tubes and turntables are much bigger offenders at deviating that SS and CD. But then that is why nobody can tell the difference between a $1,000 NAD and an $18,000 Bryston or $30,000 Krell, or tell the difference between a $600 CD player and $20,000 CD player in blind tests. The truth is this stuff sounds a lot more similar than it should given the price differences. Meanwhile, stick and Audio Note CD player in against anyone else and you'll hear the difference in blind tests. SETs - most of them ditto. Good or bad preferable or not, at least there are REAL audible differences between a SET, turntable rigs, and unique CD players.

I can answer this in short order. SS designs are pretty consistent sounding from model to model, and SET and tubes are not. SET and tubes add a unique sonic character, and SS don't in many cases. This is not flattering endorsement for Tube and SET designs for sure.
One could add, at least they know what they are getting into with SS, you cannot say that for SET or Tube designs.

audio amateur
06-02-2010, 09:23 AM
That was a post and a half :eek6: Maybe more!

Ajani
06-02-2010, 10:03 AM
Or have you considered that SS is inherently off the mark because they are SEMI-conductors and not natural voltage amplifiers and that no matter what any of them do they are handi-capped at the outset.

Certainly SS may be off the mark to some degree (nothing is perfect), but if tubes are taking shots in all directions, then clearly most of them are way off target... So while it might be feasible that certain, specific tube designs are closer to the mark than SS, clearly all (or even most) tube designs are not...


I am not a DBT supporter but I DO believe they are good enough at illustrating that differences are not large if not passed. If the difference was massive you would be able to determine the difference 10/10 times or 100/100 times. The less the difference the less your ability to tell them apart.

Agreed... While DBT certainly does not prove that differences don't exist, it clearly shows that differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles claim... A night and day difference should be easy to spot regardless of the testing procedure...

Ajani
06-02-2010, 11:21 AM
That was a post and a half :eek6: Maybe more!

So your post would be like a thirtieth of a post?

audio amateur
06-02-2010, 01:35 PM
So your post would be like a thirtieth of a post?
Certainly! Maybe even less...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-02-2010, 02:01 PM
That's me!! :D :D

Snicker snicker, snicker.....he called your name!!!!

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 02:07 PM
A player that uses no oversampling has to use brickwall filters. They ring!

I use NOS dacs. What do you mean by this?

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 02:09 PM
That was a post and a half :eek6: Maybe more!
He had lots of good points although you'll find a couple of overstated ones. Tube amps, especially pentode/tetrode designs, don't vary their bench tested flat frequency response with all speakers. Many Audio Research, Atma-Sphere, Joule Electra and VTL amps are quite neutral sounding with certain speakers. You must choose your speaker wisely, however, when using tubes or you will get the results he mentions. My amps, for example, sound decidedly colored driving the double Advents while they do not when driving the electrostats. It has to do with the impedance curve of the speaker. Wilson speakers, for example, work very well with tubes due to their flat profile.

I applaud Dr. Toole for his wanting to correlate measured response and listener preference. His innovative lab and its moving "speaker shuffler" is unique, but suited to monopole speakers only. Its indifferent consideration of the back wave is not suited for dipoles. Sean Olive acknowledged (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=53602&highlight=shuffler+E-Stat) they do not believe in system optimization factors like choice of amplifier, cabling or speaker position - which works fine if you don't care about such things. :)

Shuffler video (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html)

rw

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 02:09 PM
So while it might be feasible that certain, specific tube designs are closer to the mark than SS, clearly all (or even most) tube designs are not...


What do you mean by this? I am not understanding.

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 02:53 PM
I use NOS dacs. What do you mean by this?
With the CD Redbook format and its limited bandwidth, one must choose between one of two evils: perfect phase response or perfect frequency response. If you choose perfect FR, it requires brickwall filtering which causes ringing. My GamuT CD-1 takes the other approach and trades some HF roll off for signal integrity. Consequently, it's response is 1 db down at 20 kHz. As to which choice is better, that depends upon preference. As for me, the last time I heard a pure 20 kHz tone was quite a few years ago. :)

Which relates to the Nyquist theorem debate as well. In the theoretical and perfect world, a 44.1 kHz sample rate is sufficient to provide response to half that frequency and achieve 20 kHz.. In the real world, however, such really isn't possible. While no one truly needs response out to 192 kHz, such a sample rate ensures enough room to filter appropriately without compromising the signal integrity in the time domain. A similar situation exists with the word size. 16 bits provides the incredible dynamic range - if and only if - the output level is high. In the real world of music, however, quiet passages cause quantization errors where far fewer bits are firing and digital goes deaf. Which is why you really need the equivalent of 24 bits if you wish to duplicate analog tape.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-02-2010, 03:21 PM
With the CD Redbook format and its limited bandwidth, one must choose between one of two evils: perfect phase response or perfect frequency response. If you choose perfect FR, it requires brickwall filtering which causes ringing. My GamuT CD-1 takes the other approach and trades some HF roll off for signal integrity. Consequently, it's response is 1 db down at 20 kHz. As to which choice is better, that depends upon preference. As for me, the last time I heard a pure 20 kHz tone was quite a few years ago. :)

Which relates to the Nyquist theorem debate as well. In the theoretical and perfect world, a 44.1 kHz sample rate is sufficient to provide response to half that frequency and achieve 20 kHz.. In the real world, however, such really isn't possible. While no one truly needs response out to 192 kHz, such a sample rate ensures enough room to filter appropriately without compromising the signal integrity in the time domain. A similar situation exists with the word size. 16 bits provides the incredible dynamic range - if and only if - the output level is high. In the real world of music, however, quiet passages cause quantization errors where far fewer bits are firing and digital goes deaf. Which is why you really need the equivalent of 24 bits if you wish to duplicate analog tape.

rw

Could not have said it better......thanks!

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 03:39 PM
Could not have said it better......thanks!
We really do share some common ground. ;)

rw

Ajani
06-02-2010, 03:53 PM
What do you mean by this? I am not understanding.

The debate was based upon the assertion that all SS (or at least High neg feedback/class A/B/whatever SS) sounds similar enough as to be indistinguishable from each other in DBT, while tube amps vary greatly: some are ultra-sweet, some sound remarkably like SS, etc...

So using gun analogies with both SS and Tubes shooting at a target (reproducing the recorded signal exactly), I theorized that Tubes are clearly shooting wildly (since they vary so much) while SS is clearly aiming at the target (since they have such high level of consistency)...

Rich suggested that all SS might just be off the mark. So presumably all the shots are to some degree off target.

My response (which you queried) simply means that with tube shooting wildly, then it is only possible that some of them (if any) are closer to hitting the mark than SS....

Summary (without gun analogies):

Since Tubes can sound totally different from one another, then only some of them can actually be sounding like the original recording (the rest must clearly be altering the sound in some way).

Feanor
06-02-2010, 04:02 PM
Sorry Bill, little to none. Nonsense? :rolleyes5: Not really. Extreme linearity especially with triode designs is the whole appeal of a class A tube amp. Any tube amp that a knowledgable enthusiast would consider, will most certainly have properly implemented NFB. I doubt if even the most golden eared audiophile could hear any distortion in the well made designs.

NFB in Class A isn't nonsense. Nonsense is thinking that they are all implemented properly or the same. This is what sets good apart from great.
"Linear" is not the same as "zero distortion", however.

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Since Tubes can sound totally different from one another, then only some of them can actually be sounding like the original recording (the rest must clearly be altering the sound in some way).
As with many audio issues, it boils down to individual preferences. I have yet to hear a solid state amp that provided a "you-are-there" sort of see through to voice, woodwinds, strings, etc. in the midrange. They are measurably flat and work with a wider range of speakers. Harmonic integrity, however, is a different aspect of accuracy that is different from flat frequency response. Forget the static benchmarks, since they are next to useless in providing any sort of relevant correlation to what we hear.

I have the greatest respect for this (http://www.firstwatt.com/graphics/np_wine.jpg) designer who has striven to address the underlying differences in the amplification paradigm - voltage vs. current - in innovative ways. While Nelson Pass is better known for his high powered class A / AB designs, his First Watt "kitchen table" projects are quite innovative. The F3 (http://www.firstwatt.com/f3.html) uses power JFETs in a manner that more closely replicates the tube performance paradigm. With its 1 ohm output impedance, however, this sophisticated, yet simple little SS amp will behave more like a tube amp with some speakers. The important factor here is that he recognizes that simpler circuits usually provide more faithful reproduction of harmonic tones than complex designs having lots of stages and multiple levels of NFB, despite their "superior" metrics.

rw

YBArcam
06-02-2010, 04:22 PM
With the CD Redbook format and its limited bandwidth, one must choose between one of two evils: perfect phase response or perfect frequency response. If you choose perfect FR, it requires brickwall filtering which causes ringing. My GamuT CD-1 takes the other approach and trades some HF roll off for signal integrity. Consequently, it's response is 1 db down at 20 kHz. As to which choice is better, that depends upon preference. As for me, the last time I heard a pure 20 kHz tone was quite a few years ago. :)


Mr. Terrible said that NOS DACs have to use brickwall filters and that they ring. You stated that the decision comes down to choosing perfect frequency response or perfect phase response, the former of which requires the use of brickwall filters, which causes ringing. The implication with both of these posts in mind is that NOS DACs use brickwall filters, which ring, and this achieves perfect freq. response. The alternative, implying this is the route chosen by OS DACs, is perfect phase response, and a rolling off of high frequencies.

Maybe I'm just misreading this, and of course I shouldn't take what two entirely different people say and frame it as if it's coming from one source. But it reads like NOS DACs must use brickwall filters - however, some clearly do not. I'm definitely interested in the MHDT Havana DAC, which from my readings does not oversample nor use brickwall filters. I don't know how it handles phase response (to be honest I'm not even sure what phase response is). The reviews of MHDT DACs however, of which there are many, are positively glowing. How bad can this ringing be?

Ajani
06-02-2010, 04:58 PM
As with many audio issues, it boils down to individual preferences. I have yet to hear a solid state amp that provided a "you-are-there" sort of see through to voice, woodwinds, strings, etc. in the midrange. They are measurably flat and work with a wider range of speakers. Harmonic integrity, however, is a different aspect of accuracy that is different from flat frequency response.

So do all or even most of the tube amps you've encountered preserve harmonic integrity? If they do, then that would seem to imply that the differences in the sound of one tube design versus another is really attributable to differences in frequency response. If that's the case then I'd still expect all tube amps to sound similar just with notable differences in frequency response (like changing the settings on an equalizer)...


Forget the static benchmarks, since they are next to useless in providing any sort of relevant correlation to what we hear.

I actually believe that forgetting the benchmarks is the major problem with hifi. I think we should be encouraging designers to find ways to measure and understand harmonic integrity and ever other aspect of why we hear what we hear... This is science and not witchcraft, so even though we don't know how to measure everything yet, with enough dedication we will eventually be able to do so... But just ignoring the measurements seems a backwards step to me... I want to see more attempts to do like Harman and find the correlation between measurements and sound (I'd like to see it done by a major tube or planar manufacturer so we could get a different perspective on the situation)...


I have the greatest respect for this (http://www.firstwatt.com/graphics/np_wine.jpg) designer who has striven to address the underlying differences in the amplification paradigm - voltage vs. current - in innovative ways. While Nelson Pass is better known for his high powered class A / AB designs, his First Watt "kitchen table" projects are quite innovative. The F3 (http://www.firstwatt.com/f3.html) uses power JFETs in a manner that more closely replicates the tube performance paradigm. With its 1 ohm output impedance, however, this sophisticated, yet simple little SS amp will behave more like a tube amp with some speakers. The important factor here is that he recognizes that simpler circuits usually provide more faithful reproduction of harmonic tones than complex designs having lots of stages and multiple levels of NFB, despite their "superior" metrics.

rw

Nelson Pass has a legendary reputation: anyone with enough confidence to give away his old schematics to the DIY community must know what he is doing....

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 06:07 PM
"Linear" is not the same as "zero distortion", however.

Of course not, but in the case of SET amps they are tied together and inter relate.

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 06:13 PM
How bad can this ringing be?

That's what I am asking too. Thanks for the run down guys, but since I know there's no audible "ringing", does this mean the ringing is actually diminishing what I am able to hear?

BTW, my DAC in the H/T is a 4 x TDA 1543 using a DIR 9001. I just love it to bits and have done tons of comparisons with it. Gives the music such a natural sound, it's mind boggling.

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 07:16 PM
But it reads like NOS DACs must use brickwall filters - however, some clearly do not.
New old stock or not - whatever relevance that has - one has to make a choice. There is an Ayre player that provides both profiles and you may switch between the two. You really must oversample in order to preserve proper response in the time domain. The Crystal 4390 in the GamuT provides 128x oversampling.


The reviews of MHDT DACs however, of which there are many, are positively glowing. How bad can this ringing be?
I cannot comment directly on that which I haven't heard, but ringing is not a good thing.

rw

E-Stat
06-02-2010, 07:23 PM
So do all or even most of the tube amps you've encountered preserve harmonic integrity? If they do, then that would seem to imply that the differences in the sound of one tube design versus another is really attributable to differences in frequency response.
Overall, yes. The biggest challenge is not the FR of the amplifiers themselves. Because of their relatively high source impedance, it is their interaction with speakers having roller coaster impedance curves where the end product gets screwed up a couple of db in several octaves. The quality of the output caps and power supply stiffness also matter.


I think we should be encouraging designers to find ways to measure and understand harmonic integrity and ever other aspect of why we hear what we hear... This is science and not witchcraft, so even though we don't know how to measure everything yet, with enough dedication we will eventually be able to do so...
Spectral analysis helps, but is typically run with a single fundamental frequency like 50 hz.


(I'd like to see it done by a major tube or planar manufacturer so we could get a different perspective on the situation)...
Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere has a white paper on his website that addresses this question.


Nelson Pass has a legendary reputation: anyone with enough confidence to give away his old schematics to the DIY community must know what he is doing....
His products survive the test of time, too. I have a 29 year old Threshold Stasis amplifier which still offers exceptional performance (after having replaced the Mallory computer grade electrolytics in the power supply).

rw

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 07:25 PM
New old stock or not - whatever relevance that has -

In this context, it's Non-Over-Sampling.

E-Stat
06-03-2010, 09:31 AM
In this context, it's Non-Over-Sampling.
Ah. I confess that all of the best CDPs / DACs I've heard use oversampling in one flavor or another. The EMM Labs SACD players upsample Redbook to twice the DSD rate. My previous reference, the magnificently built and gorgeous sounding Burmester 969/970, also upsamples. It was those that I directly compared to the GamuT CD-1 before purchasing. Which uses an upsampling Crystal chip as does the Manley DAC I use in the vintage system.

rw

Feanor
06-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Ah. I confess that all of the best CDPs / DACs I've heard use oversampling in one flavor or another. The EMM Labs SACD players upsample Redbook to twice the DSD rate. My previous reference, the magnificently built and gorgeous sounding Burmester 969/970, also upsamples. It was those that I directly compared to the GamuT CD-1 before purchasing. Which uses an upsampling Crystal chip as does the Manley DAC I use in the vintage system.

rw
The EMM, Burmester, and GamuT are all many times to price of a basic NOS of the type Poppachubby is referring to. So many be it's expensive to implement upsampling really well, (though there a plenty of quite good upsamplers around, e.g. Cambridge, Musical Fidelity, and since a price reduction, the PS Audio).

It's perhaps harder to justify the Audio Note NOS models (http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/digital/dac_5_sig_01.shtml) that range from quite expensive to very expensive. The least expensive AN, in kit form, runs $1500; you can buy DAC based on the same digital chips for about 1/10th that price on eBay. Of course the eBay examples lack the pricey analog components, capacitors, etc., found in the AN.

pixelthis
06-03-2010, 10:42 AM
Its kind of ironic, a thread on the future of "HI-FI", and a lenghty discussion that
is a case in point as to why its dying.
When someone in the know asks me what is so special about a SET, a design that
was basically obsolete by 1950, I don't know what to tell them.
When the ask about the gobbledegook concerning brick wall filters and various
DAC'S, NONE OF WHICH MATTER, because most GERMAN SHEPARDS
couldn't tell the difference, I tell them its philosopical, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
USED TO BE you could compare turntables, various combinations of equipment, etc,
but today it doesnt matter.
The only thing that will make a real difference is type of speakers, and decent power output(which a tube set seldom has, btw).
The perfection of digital media has left HI-FI types to argue about the most extraneous
of things.
Is there a difference between tube and solid state?
Yes, tubes are obsolete, solid state is not.
Why is it that the more you pay for "high end" gear the more obsolete its bound to be?
You tell me.
Which answers the question that is the subject of this thread,
the "future" of HI-FI.
irrelevance, in one word.
EXPLAINING why music in its purest form in a home listening enviroment is such a joy
to the great unwashed is hard enough, without explaining why gear that was obsolete
in 1934 is the only way to do it.:1:

audio amateur
06-03-2010, 11:03 AM
I have the greatest respect for this (http://www.firstwatt.com/graphics/np_wine.jpg) designer
He definitely needs to get out of his cave me thinks:yesnod:

E-Stat
06-03-2010, 11:17 AM
... because most GERMAN SHEPARDS couldn't tell the difference...
Why would you consult a German Shepherd on audio matters? Somehow, I don't think they appreciate music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YddRJjluEeU) very much. :)

rw

E-Stat
06-03-2010, 11:29 AM
He definitely needs to get out of his cave me thinks:yesnod:
He's never seemed to find much use for scissors whether its the 70s (http://www.hifi-museum.com/pa/np_index.htm) or today, but he does have a nice cave. (http://6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt10/j2.html) :) Follow the article through for more pics. I especially like the TAS poster of Leopold Stokowski hanging on the wall (you'll find a pic of the same one hanging in my listening room)

rw

YBArcam
06-03-2010, 12:00 PM
Why would you consult a German Shepherd on audio matters? Somehow, I don't think they appreciate music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YddRJjluEeU) very much. :)

rw

My old German Shepherd used to howl at opera music. Even that part before the guitar solo on Bohemian Rhapsody! He was clearly into it.

poppachubby
06-03-2010, 12:10 PM
When someone in the know asks me what is so special about a SET, a design that
was basically obsolete by 1950, I don't know what to tell them.

Hey I have an idea, why don't you tell them you don't know what you are talking about?!? Try a history book, oh right...you've opted to write your own.

Ajani
06-03-2010, 01:47 PM
Why would you consult a German Shepherd on audio matters? Somehow, I don't think they appreciate music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YddRJjluEeU) very much. :)

rw

It makes perfect sense to me...

Every time I turn on my SET/Horn system, my dog howls as if I'm trying to neuter him with a rusty spoon and no anesthetic... But whenever I put on my megawatt SS/Cone speakers, he dances around like snoopy (and occasionally humps the coffee table)... So this is clear evidence that SS is superior to tubes...

E-Stat
06-03-2010, 02:01 PM
... he dances around like snoopy (and occasionally humps the coffee table)... So this is clear evidence that SS is superior to tubes.
LOL! I got a little bit of Diet Coke up my nose with that one.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Mr. Terrible said that NOS DACs have to use brickwall filters and that they ring. You stated that the decision comes down to choosing perfect frequency response or perfect phase response, the former of which requires the use of brickwall filters, which causes ringing. The implication with both of these posts in mind is that NOS DACs use brickwall filters, which ring, and this achieves perfect freq. response. The alternative, implying this is the route chosen by OS DACs, is perfect phase response, and a rolling off of high frequencies.

Maybe I'm just misreading this, and of course I shouldn't take what two entirely different people say and frame it as if it's coming from one source. But it reads like NOS DACs must use brickwall filters - however, some clearly do not. I'm definitely interested in the MHDT Havana DAC, which from my readings does not oversample nor use brickwall filters. I don't know how it handles phase response (to be honest I'm not even sure what phase response is). The reviews of MHDT DACs however, of which there are many, are positively glowing. How bad can this ringing be?

Ringing can sound quite bad, as it can give the sound a hardness, harsh digital haze that is very noticeable and not very musical. The Havana incorporates tubes in the signal path, and that can mitigate these characteristics quite a bit. However when compared to well designed up sampling or oversampling(algorithm) DAC, they can sound less detailed and airy, and a bit smoothed over. On the plus side, they can sound very natural(still less detailed) and easy to listen to much like analog. Tubes are used to buffer the signal which mitigates the need for a filter(supposedly). This however leaves the digital noise intact, and you are forced to use the natural aging of the hairs in the ears to filter that out(roll off the sound). For those like me who's hearing has not degraded that much(I can still hear a tone at 18khz) that noise results in less air, and a rather dark sound. Another characteristic of NOS DAC's is they can make a poorly recorded mix sound more musical, which leads me to believe it is not very accurate. A poor recording should sound poor period. That's accuracy.

Another issue is that they don't sound good tucked into to everyone's equipment. In other words, no universal compatibility. This is much like tube amps. If your system shades on the brighter side of things, NOS DAC's may be a good match for your system. If your system chain is flatter or even slightly laid back, there is no way it will sound good. They would probably sound pretty good on a computer based system which is why Poppa likes it so much. From what I heard, the sound of NOS DAC's deteriorate as the components within the system age. It is very parts intensive design.

I am going to add that I prefer high resolution audio over any CD based band-aid. Oversampling, upsamping, no filter tube signal paths, brick wall filters are all bandages that are not needed if the sample rate is above 48khz.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-03-2010, 02:34 PM
That's what I am asking too. Thanks for the run down guys, but since I know there's no audible "ringing", does this mean the ringing is actually diminishing what I am able to hear?

Since there is a tube in the signal path after conversion, it is used as a filter along with the listeners hearing capability. The use of the tube does reduce resolution just a bit though, and I suspect the cause of this is no word re-clocking within the system.


BTW, my DAC in the H/T is a 4 x TDA 1543 using a DIR 9001. I just love it to bits and have done tons of comparisons with it. Gives the music such a natural sound, it's mind boggling.

Natural sound is a quality of NOS DAC, but it comes at the expense of subtle details within the mix. Not a big deal if you don't have the master tapes to compare the sound to.

RGA
06-03-2010, 05:26 PM
YBArcam

I have had a number of CD players through here and at my favorite dealer - Soundhounds in Victoria. The player I am currently reviewing is The CD 2.1x MKII and the interesting thing is that it takes on more Solid State attributes being discussed in this thread than tube attributes. It doesn't paper over the cracks and homogenize recordings the way my Cambridge Audio CD 6 player does or the way the Bryston BCD-1 does where it "helps out" lesser recordings.

The 2.1X is doing an extraordinary thing in that seems not to be presenting as much of an inherent signature signature sound of its own on the recordings. By not having a pile of band aid technologies it is allowing everything on the disc to come through unlike other players that noise shape and filter out music they are arguably taking music program with them. Remarkable.

There is nothing "valve-like" about the sound of this player and you will be sorely disappointed if you want something that sounds mushy or warm. The 1.1 I compared against a Sim Audio and Bryston BCD-1 - all three use the same Philips L1210 transport mechanism and it's interesting that the AN 1.1 sounded the most open, and the most "airy" of the bunch.

The other two in direct comparison sounded darker and less transparent again making me want to turn the volume up to hear what is on the disc. Though the strange thing is they had more of a black back drop in a way that the AN did not. I will have to audition more here to figure out what is going on there. Still it should have been the other way round since the AN is using a tube in there someplace - like a higher noise floor though no noise whatsoever can be heard. WTF? was my reaction.

Bass was handled a bit differently as well. I had the Pulp Fiction soundtrack and a Santana Disc the stood out because the bass of the Sim Audio and Bryston seemed deeper on one track and vocals seemed a semi-octave lower while the AN the same track the vocals seems airier and in some respects vocally strained. Yet on another disc the Sim/bryston players played the same kind of bass lines as previous and with most all the music I brought in this general genre while the AN then came in with deeper bass than those two on a different track. The previous two players clearly presented the signature stamped on sound the units are pushing on every disc while the AN was bouncing from disc to disc. Where there was real bass - you get it and when it's not there you get a lighter presentation while the other two players presented very similar sounding results from disc to disc to disc while the AN was putting out considerably different results from disc to disc to disc. Illustrating more of the differences between the recordings.

My Cambridge Audio CD 6 in comparison sounds veiled and brooding in comparison with a lack of openness and even a stunted treble. Quite intriguing results since the tube should actually sound veiled and warm and dark yet it is this bizzaro world of reversal. We'll see when I get more time with it and run wildly different music just what is happening. Perhaps there is something to the chipset as this guy seems to suggest http://www.lampizator.eu/lampizator/REFERENCES/audioNote%20DAC4/audionote_dac4.html or the oddball topology diagram shown here http://www.audionotekits.com/agrovedac.html

YBArcam
06-04-2010, 07:21 PM
Thanks for the responses RGA and Terrence. I enjoyed reading through this thread even though it has gone massively off topic from what the OP planned. There is lots of good debate here. I guess there is no consensus though, other than perhaps it depends. It depends on the ears of the listener and the associated gear, when determining which amp or CD player fits best into a given system. I look forward to listening to Audio Note sources (CD players and turntables ~ their way of doing things seems different enough to warrant a serious look), valve amps, SS amps, and NOS and OS DACs. Up till now I've limited myself to SS and oversampling and filtering players, which isn't unusual for a newbie. But for my next system change in probably a few years it'll be time to branch out a little, at least in terms of my search.

RGA
06-04-2010, 08:31 PM
There are too many viewpoints and technical arguments and hoopla in both camps. I gave up years ago going down the paths (sorta went down it here too) but I am simply not interested in technical arguments that don't remotely support what it is that I hear.

I have never heard hybrid amps that I liked and yet recently had some hybrid monoblocks in and they very much impressed. At CES I heard speakers that I normally have not at all liked and some of them wound up being some of the best I heard there.

I used to be a numbers guys interested in big power, slew rates, IM and TIM and THD and amps and ability to double into 1ohm and all that wondrous stuff. It is with almost great frustration that I could actually like SET, tube non oversampling CD players, and vinyl. All of which is technically absurd. And when a company adds them all together the result should be a system so far out of whack as to be utterly ridiculous. And, not to get too far off here, I hate to say it but it almost sounds like a religious conversion. As an Atheist of the Richard Dawkins camp I don't like the idea of supporting what looks to be a religious cult of gear. It bugs my science/philosophical sensibilities.

Take headphones. You can have the best sounding headphone in the world but if it is uncomfortable it's useless. You can have the most technically accurate stereo in the world but if it sounds better in the OFF position then being technically accurate isn't much consolation.

Besides, the future of hi-fi is unwritten. In 25 years it is very possible that people will still be cutting vinyl and selling tubes while 10 year olds will be looking puzzled when you talk about CD. Hell, a school I was at the other day subbing had a Laser Disc player. No discs and I had to explain to the kids what a Laser Disc was. I have about 50 of them someplace but no player. They're a hoot - a strange little oddity now.

Ajani
06-04-2010, 09:54 PM
Despite the tech debates in this thread (I've certainly enjoyed tossing around a few theories), I don't think there is any one answer in HiFi yet. If there was then everyone would use it. All technologies have benefits and disadvantages. So it really comes down to personal preferences. Also, many of us in HiFi get obsessed with one tech or the other and prejudice ourselves too easily. This is why you see persons having to confess that X brand or Y tech surprised them by sounding good... For example; Just because someone has never heard a horn speaker they like, doesn't mean that all horns sound bad, and one day that person may well find a horn that does it for him... I've seen persons bad mouth a particular tech/brand for years and then turn around and buy them (perhaps their tastes changed or perhaps they were too prejudiced to give the item a fair chance before, either way it shows how silly it is to get obsessed with any one belief system)...

As I said at the beginning of this thread: we will still be debating tech in the future. And until we finally figure out how to measure everything that affects why we hear what we hear, then I can't see any one tech reigning supreme. Sadly, I find that too many brands are either obsessed with traditional (insufficient) measurements, while others seem to just dismiss measurements entirely. So in extreme (yet not so uncommon) scenarios you'll have brands producing 'technically perfect' but awful sounding gear, while at the other you'll have a designer in a remote cave in Japan tuning an exotic amp by ear, that sounds magnificent but has a 50% chance of exploding and killing you, when you press the power button...

RGA
06-05-2010, 10:04 AM
I think most manufacturers pay close attention to measurements. It's being a slave to them when they are so lacking on so many levels that you rightly note. Audio Note pays close attention to measurements which is why they get closer tolerances than anyone else on a number of fronts. The TT3 is an in house design and it's technically superb. I'd make the case that to design a cd player without filters and oversampling you better know what the hell you're doing from a technical standpoint to not have a hint of blur, ringing or any other anomolies. The fact that others say it can't be done is usually indicative of their abilities and not necessarily the competition.

I don't entirely agree with your point that everyone else would copy. There are clear marketing reasons not to copy because everyone will think your not innovative. And there is also a "cost" involved where it may be considerably higher in cost to make a given design over another and if like most companies you are creating product for a price point it may not be possible to copy, meet the price point. And if you copy and you get caught you may get a lawsuit filed against you. It is far easier to design something that looks sexy and you can advertise rather than try and copy someone else and reduce profit.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2010, 02:18 PM
I agree with Ajani, and it has been my assertion all long; it all boils down to our personal preferences, of which no better or best tag can be effectively applied. It all becomes too subjective for hard fast generalizations which are applied different designs. Once again, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Everyone has different taste when it comes to audio(and are far less critical when it comes to video), and that is why there are so many different ways of reproducing it. Every design has a market out there, or it goes away for lack of sales. Everyone has the right to re-examine what is good sounding for themselves as their taste in audio change. This is based on the reality that the ear's sensitivities change over time. What we could hear at 20, we cannot hear at 50 and above. Sometimes the deterioration happens early in ones life, and sometimes much later. One of the things I have learned over the years is that ones taste in audio formats and technology are not necessarily driven by sound alone. Sometimes it is familiarity, sometimes visceral, others it is what makes them relaxed and comfortable. It is a known fact that analog sound relaxes the brain, and its euphoric qualities stimulates our emotions which changes the way we listen to it. Digital stimulates the brain, makes us alert and not relaxed, which makes it harder to obtain a emotional attachment to it. Even this theory while recognized, is not universal to all listeners. It does go a long way to explaining at least some differences as to why some people gravitate towards one technology or another.

I think the idea of some tube component and amp designs being insinuated as forward thinking is not founded in fact. The analog world is so old that it has had many chances for different playback designs to be explored and refined over the years. Technology has been introduced, used, and fallen by the wayside for other perceivably better technology. Later down the road, they are re-introduced when the quality of parts(and understanding) come along. Applying analog technology to digital recordings makes the digital recordings sound more analog. Those who love analog have adapted their old technology to make a new technology sound more like the old technology. Analog is what they are used to, and what they like no matter what trade offs there are to obtaining it. If you think there are no trade offs, listen to a digital master reproduced by high quality tube based source in front of a SET or other tube based amp. The playback system changes the sonic character of the master noticeably. The same with analog audio trans coded to digital - it is going to sound different. Better? not to everyone. Different? anyone can hear it.

If you like if you like the various tube based amplifiers and source components, nothing wrong with that. It however is not a better choice than digital audio and SS based amps. Good design is good design, good implementation is good implementation, and good system synergy is good system synergy.

My only issue with analog sound now is its lack of multichannel ability. Otherwise as I have said before, there is nothing like a recording on 3" magnetic tape encoded with Dolby SR, except high resolution digital.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2010, 02:47 PM
I'd make the case that to design a cd player without filters and oversampling you better know what the hell you're doing from a technical standpoint to not have a hint of blur, ringing or any other anomolies. The fact that others say it can't be done is usually indicative of their abilities and not necessarily the competition.

The reality is while you have eliminated the digital filters, but you have implemented an analog one via the tube being used as a buffer. You are also leaning heavily on the hearing capabilities of the listener by allowing anti aliasing to take place, and using the tube to smoothen, disguise and shape its negative effects. You are "analoging" the digital sound and there is nothing new about that. If there is no brick wall filter, there is no ringing or blur, that is well known. The end effect is a unique sonic character, which allows you a marketing tool you can use to compete on the market. It is called product differentiation. Innovation and differentiation is driven by the competition, this is also well known.

I think what Ajani means is a lack of product differentiation, not exactly copying.

theaudiohobby
06-05-2010, 05:42 PM
It is a known fact that analog sound relaxes the brain, and its euphoric qualities stimulates our emotions which changes the way we listen to it. Digital stimulates the brain, makes us alert and not relaxed, which makes it harder to obtain a emotional attachment to it. Even this theory while recognized

Sorry for being pedantic, the output of a DAC is an analogue signal and strictly speaking no one ever really listens to digital but to a analogue output recovered from a digital encoding scheme. And if the sampling frequency and word length are high enough, it's becomes impossible to differentiate between a signal that passed through an ADC-DAC stage and one that hasn't. Therefore I doubt that this theory has any credence at all.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2010, 08:39 AM
Sorry for being pedantic, the output of a DAC is an analogue signal and strictly speaking no one ever really listens to digital but to a analogue output recovered from a digital encoding scheme. And if the sampling frequency and word length are high enough, it's becomes impossible to differentiate between a signal that passed through an ADC-DAC stage and one that hasn't. Therefore I doubt that this theory has any credence at all.

First, you are out of the context of this discussion. We are not talking about high resolution audio(I have already made my case on that). We are talking about CD audio.

Secondly, you are being very pedantic. What I describe is not a theory at all, it is a proven fact. AES several years ago had one white paper submission (and exhibit) that looked at the brain activity of quite a few listeners while listening analog recordings on a analog based system, and a digital recording on a digitally based system. The brain activity was totally different with the listeners of the analog recording having brain activity that showed relaxation and emotional response. Brain activity slowed, and the area of the brain that was stimulated is where the emotional response activity happens. The listeners relaxed while listening.

The digital recording produced increased brain activity, but not on the side of the brain where emotional responses come from. That area was no longer stimulated, and the increased brain activity showed there was no relaxation. So whether you think the theory has credibility or not is irrelevant to the facts.

Lastly, just because a digitally encoded signal passes through a DAC, and becomes analog, does not mean it erases it's digital heritage. The only time that signal was analog, was when it was in the air. After it hits the microphone and is transcoded to digital, all of its analog character has been transformed into 0 and 1's. This changes its waveform, and that waveform does not change back to a analog looking waveform just because it passes through a DAC.

theaudiohobby
06-06-2010, 11:42 AM
What I describe is not a theory at all, it is a proven fact. AES several years ago had one white paper submission (and exhibit) that looked at the brain activity of quite a few listeners while listening analog recordings on a analog based system, and a digital recording on a digitally based system. The brain activity was totally different with the listeners of the analog recording having brain activity that showed relaxation and emotional response. Brain activity slowed, and the area of the brain that was stimulated is where the emotional response activity happens. The listeners relaxed while listening.
What paper would this be? A single paper submission does not in itself constitute established theory. The paper was probably forgotten because it's conclusions could not be replicated as well as it flying in the face of other established theory.

Lastly, just because a digitally encoded signal passes through a DAC, and becomes analog, does not mean it erases it's digital heritage. The only time that signal was analog, was when it was in the air. After it hits the microphone and is transcoded to digital, all of its analog character has been transformed into 0 and 1's. This changes its waveform, and that waveform does not change back to a analog looking waveform just because it passes through a DAC.
This whole thought is simply wrong, what is digital heritage? If the bit depth and sampling rate is insufficient, what digital heritage would accompany the recovered analog signal. what digital heritage accompanies a recovered CD signal aside from the fact it does not capture any data above 22Khz?

"This changes its waveform, and that waveform does not change back to a analog looking waveform just because it passes through a DAC"

The converse is true, it changes back to an analog waveform in it's entirety, that's a fundamental principle in digital theory.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2010, 01:46 PM
What paper would this be? A single paper submission does not in itself constitute established theory. The paper was probably forgotten because it's conclusions could not be replicated as well as it flying in the face of other established theory.

If you read what I said clearly, there was a exhibit that went along with the paper. You were allowed into to dedicated listen rooms(just as I described), and the test was administered just as the white paper test was. The conclusions done in the booth were exactly the same as the white paper described, and you could see the measurements taken of the brain activity right after the test was done. It correlated exactly to the measurements outlined in the white paper. It was peer reviewed, which establishes its legitimacy. There has been nothing to dispute this since it was submitted. So it was probably forgotten is nothing more than your theory. It hasn't been challenged is more accurate.


This whole thought is simply wrong, what is digital heritage? If the bit depth and sampling rate is insufficient, what digital heritage would accompany the recovered analog signal.

Let's start with the waveform. Once a analog signal is encoded to 16bit resolution, it appears as a stair stepped waveform, unlike a recorded analog which is more rounded. A DAC see's that waveform, and attempts to transcode that waveform exactly as it is represented - a series of snapshots that represent a stair stepped pattern. Remember, there are two chief distinctions between an analog and a digital signal. The first is that the analog signal is continuous in time, meaning that it varies smoothly over time no matter how short a time period you consider(the rounded waveform), whereas the digital signal, in contrast, is discrete in time, meaning it has distinct parts that follow one after another with definite, unambiguous division points (called signal transitions) between them.(the square tooth waveform). A DAC will represent the same square tooth pattern it had during encoding. That is the beauty of digital audio, its input looks just like the output on a high quality DAC. However what is good in theory is not always good in the field. Jitter is a problem with digital that is not a problem with analog. Aliasing is a problem with digital that is not a problem with analog. Quantization errors (noise) occurs with digital audio, that does not occur with analog, and overload characteristics of digital are profoundly different than that of analog. The addition of dither will also make a digital waveform profoundly different than a analog waveform. In saying this, even after conversion, a digitally encoded signal's waveform will look different from a analog recorded waveform. In the field using real world ADC and DAC, all things are not perfect until the bit and sample rate are increased dramatically from 16bit 44.1khz.



what digital heritage accompanies a recovered CD signal aside from the fact it does not capture any data above 22Khz?

A different waveform pattern just to start.


"This changes its waveform, and that waveform does not change back to a analog looking waveform just because it passes through a DAC"

The converse is true, it changes back to an analog waveform in it's entirety, that's a fundamental principle in digital theory.

That is a theory argument, not a real world one. If all things were perfect, you would be right. But in the real world all things are not perfect, and that is a fact. No signal chain is perfect whether it is digital or analog.

theaudiohobby
06-06-2010, 03:32 PM
If you read what I said clearly, there was a exhibit that went along with the paper. You were allowed into to dedicated listen rooms(just as I described), and the test was administered just as the white paper test was. The conclusions done in the booth were exactly the same as the white paper described, and you could see the measurements taken of the brain activity right after the test was done. It correlated exactly to the measurements outlined in the white paper. It was peer reviewed, which establishes its legitimacy. There has been nothing to dispute this since it was submitted. So it was probably forgotten is nothing more than your theory. It hasn't been challenged is more accurate.


Without the paper, all this is simply handwaving, Accepted theory that establishes a connection between digital encoding and agitation in test subjects would not be hidden away in a single AES paper.


Let's start with the waveform. Once a analog signal is encoded to 16bit resolution, it appears as a stair stepped waveform, unlike a recorded analog which is more rounded

You got this wrong from get-go, a DAC does not see a waveform in the sense you use the term, it recovers a digital datastream of some sort PCM, DSM or whatever from the carrier signal at it's input. The reconstruction filter reconstructs the orignal analog waveform from the datastream recovered at DAC input.


Remember, there are two chief distinctions between an analog and a digital signal. The first is that the analog signal is continuous in time, meaning that it varies smoothly over time no matter how short a time period you consider(the rounded waveform), whereas the digital signal, in contrast, is discrete in time, meaning it has distinct parts that follow one after another with definite, unambiguous division points (called signal transitions) between them.(the square tooth waveform).

As stated previously, a DAC recovers a datastream at it's input, You've conflated the quantization process and the reconstruction process. A DAC uses a filter to reconstruct an analog signal from a quantized datastream. The recovered analog signal is continuous in time by definition whereas the digital datastream received at it's input is quantized.


Jitter is a problem with digital that is not a problem with analog. Aliasing is a problem with digital that is not a problem with analog. Quantization errors (noise) occurs with digital audio, that does not occur with analog, and overload characteristics of digital are profoundly different than that of analog

You've thrown a scatter load of unrelated stuff out there. Aliasing is non-issue, a well designed will reject out-of-band images with no problem, Quantisation noise occurs at the noise floor, dither lowers it even further. Analog has similar issues with noise, tape noise and groove noise are two well known examples.

Jitter is an issue, but it's minor compared to the gross distortions that occur in the analog. And it related cousins in the analog world are wow and flutter and then there is stuff like rumble.


That is a theory argument, not a real world one. If all things were perfect, you would be right. But in the real world all things are not perfect, and that is a fact. No signal chain is perfect whether it is digital or analog.

Ha! Perfection is a non-issue, a DAC always outputs analog waveform, if it doesn't it's broken. Analog waveforms ( at least, audio ones) are continuous in time by definition.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2010, 07:39 PM
Without the paper, all this is simply handwaving, Accepted theory that establishes a connection between digital encoding and agitation in test subjects would not be hidden away in a single AES paper.

I never said there was only one paper on the subject, I said I read it a couple of years ago, and I saw the test being performed at AES. I am only aware of one study, but I am pretty sure more has been done on the subject, just not for the same reasons.


You got this wrong from get-go, a DAC does not see a waveform in the sense you use the term, it recovers a digital datastream of some sort PCM, DSM or whatever from the carrier signal at it's input. The reconstruction filter reconstructs the orignal analog waveform from the datastream recovered at DAC input.

The DAC turns the binary data in a analog signal, and the reconstruction filter is used to construct a smooth analog signal from the output of a DAC. The question is does the waveform after reconstruction look exactly like the waveform from an all analog signal that never get's digitally processed. The answer to that is no.


As stated previously, a DAC recovers a datastream at it's input, You've conflated the quantization process and the reconstruction process. A DAC uses a filter to reconstruct an analog signal from a quantized datastream. The recovered analog signal is continuous in time by definition whereas the digital datastream received at it's input is quantized.

Agreed.



You've thrown a scatter load of unrelated stuff out there. Aliasing is non-issue, a well designed will reject out-of-band images with no problem, Quantisation noise occurs at the noise floor, dither lowers it even further. Analog has similar issues with noise, tape noise and groove noise are two well known examples.

Actually the issues are not so similar. Quantization noise is more audibly disturbing than the noise-floor in analog system. Dither helps can make that noise less audible, but dither can add grain to the sound as well.

Aliasing is indeed an issue, and if it wasn't an issue, the techniques such as oversampling and upsampling would not be necessary. Reconstruction filters that do not effect the frequency response in the higher frequencies have not been made. You have two choices, begin rolling off the signal before Nyquist frequency is reached, or create a brick wall filter which stands a good chance of ringing. Neither is a perfect solution, which is where oversampling comes into play.



Jitter is an issue, but it's minor compared to the gross distortions that occur in the analog. And it related cousins in the analog world are wow and flutter and then there is stuff like rumble.

Jitter can be just as big a problem as wow and flutter. It depends on how much is in the signal.




Ha! Perfection is a non-issue, a DAC always outputs analog waveform, if it doesn't it's broken. Analog waveforms ( at least, audio ones) are continuous in time by definition.

We can argue digital audio 101 till the cows come home but there is this one basic point. My point is simply this, I can record a live concert using split feeds from my board to two separate paths. One can be sent via a clean all analog path to an analog recorder, the other to a digital recorder or hard drive at 16bits. In a perfect world they should sound exactly alike during playback, but in reality they don't. In the end they both end up as analog, but the sonic character is clearly different. Neither is better(except to the listener), but they sure sound different coming from the same mikes and mixing board. Increasing the bit and sample rate decreases the difference between the digital sound and analog sound.

pixelthis
06-06-2010, 10:27 PM
Hey I have an idea, why don't you tell them you don't know what you are talking about?!? Try a history book, oh right...you've opted to write your own.

Oh, I sharpened my teeth on various tube designs, you'd be surprized at just how much I know about them.
And my version of history is correct.
Tubes get hot( heat is the primary enemy of electronic circuits), they cause a ton of distortion (that "tube" sound) and have to have a seperate heating circuit for the emiters,
which are basically the same as the filament in a light bulb.
Hi fi types like tubes because of the "tube" sound( harmonic distortion) , the fact that
they are "exclusive"( the great unwashed can't afford them) and the basic herd
mentality that exists in all humans.
THE TUBERS in HI FI tend to be non electronic types.
PEEPS who know even a smigen about electronics shy away from tubes,
because using tube circuits is like commuting to work every day on a horse.:1:

theaudiohobby
06-07-2010, 12:13 AM
I never said there was only one paper on the subject, I said I read it a couple of years ago, and I saw the test being performed at AES. I am only aware of one study, but I am pretty sure more has been done on the subject, just not for the same reasons.
In otherwords, you have precisely zero evidence to support of what is supposedly a well-accepted theory, or proven fact as you put it. Digital encoding schemes are at the heart of telecommunications the world over, if digital induced agitation were an issue, it would be widely known and published.

The DAC turns the binary data in a analog signal, and the reconstruction filter is used to construct a smooth analog signal from the output of a DAC. The question is does the waveform after reconstruction look exactly like the waveform from an all analog signal that never get's digitally processed. The answer to that is no.
My original proposition was the output of a DAC is an analog signal, a continuous waveform by definition. Your claim that the analog signal at the DAC output is not exactly identical to the original analog signal is a strawman.


Actually the issues are not so similar. Quantization noise is more audibly disturbing than the noise-floor in analog system. Dither helps can make that noise less audible, but dither can add grain to the sound as well.

At -96dB in an undithered 16-bit system across the entire passband and greater than -100dB in a dithered one, I think not. tape noise in analog tape was so bad, it required equalisation (i.e. Dolby) to mitigate it's effects.


Aliasing is indeed an issue, and if it wasn't an issue, the techniques such as oversampling and upsampling would not be necessary. Reconstruction filters that do not effect the frequency response in the higher frequencies have not been made. You have two choices, begin rolling off the signal before Nyquist frequency is reached, or create a brick wall filter which stands a good chance of ringing. Neither is a perfect solution, which is where oversampling comes into play.
not sure what your point is here, anti-aliasing is an integral part of DAC design, and like any other engineering endeavour there are trade-offs.

We can argue digital audio 101 till the cows come home but there is this one basic point. My point is simply this, I can record a live concert using split feeds from my board to two separate paths. One can be sent via a clean all analog path to an analog recorder, the other to a digital recorder or hard drive at 16bits. In a perfect world they should sound exactly alike during playback, but in reality they don't. In the end they both end up as analog, but the sonic character is clearly different.
There are any number of reasons why the scenario you describe above can happen, however none of these reasons invalidate the basic fact that the output of a DAC is an analog signal that closely resembles the encoded analog signal within the limits of practical digital design and theory. Secondly, an analog audio signal irrespective of it's source, be it a DAC or a pure analog component is always a continuous signal.

E-Stat
06-07-2010, 06:01 AM
Hi fi types like tubes because of the "tube" sound( harmonic distortion)
It is because of the superior spectral distribution. At what level can you detect distortion? If you were intellectually honest, you would take the distortion test link I posted a while back and find yourself eating your words over the threshold of distortion audibility.


the fact that they are "exclusive"( the great unwashed can't afford them)
Only those who are unaware of the many options available to them.

rw

theaudiohobby
06-07-2010, 06:22 AM
It is because of the superior spectral distribution.

rw

'superior spectral distribution', now that's a note taken right out of the cable peddler's marketing notebook. good job :)

E-Stat
06-07-2010, 07:30 AM
'superior spectral distribution', now that's a note taken right out of the cable peddler's marketing notebook. good job :)
It's certainly fine by me that you don't understand the auditory system sensitivity difference between even and odd order harmonics. Fortunately, most designers do these days and SS has made some significant strides in recent years with simpler, more linear circuits requiring far less feedback which has always added to the problem.

"Audiophiles have been accused of using 2nd or 3rd harmonic distortion as tone controls to deliberately alter the sound. I suppose that there are people who like it that way, but I don't think this is generally the case. For reasons which will become clearer when we talk about inter-modulation distortion, high levels of any harmonic become problematic with musical material having multiple instruments, and the argument that 2nd or 3rd adds “musicality” doesn't quite hold up."

Distortion and feedback (http://passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf)

rw

Ajani
06-07-2010, 08:52 AM
Distortion and feedback (http://passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf)

rw

Thanks for sharing. I've certainly enjoyed reading the links you've provided in this thread.

That article from Pass + the reviews of the XA30.5 on Stereophile; notably the one where Eric Lichte compares the sound of Kanye West's love lockdown replayed with the 30 watt pass amp versus with Musical Fidelity 750 watt monos, clearly reinforces my view that just about all designs have some merit. Now I'm convinced that all I need is a 200 - 300 watt pure Class A amp, so I think a pair of Pass Labs XA200.5 monos would do the trick:

http://www.passlabs.com/xa_5_series.htm

Now if anyone would like to make a donation towards the $31K for the Pass Amps, feel free to pm me... :biggrin5:

Geoffcin
06-07-2010, 09:48 AM
Oh, I sharpened my teeth on various tube designs, you'd be surprized at just how much I know about them.
And my version of history is correct.
Tubes get hot( heat is the primary enemy of electronic circuits), they cause a ton of distortion (that "tube" sound) and have to have a seperate heating circuit for the emiters,
which are basically the same as the filament in a light bulb.
Hi fi types like tubes because of the "tube" sound( harmonic distortion) , the fact that
they are "exclusive"( the great unwashed can't afford them) and the basic herd
mentality that exists in all humans.
THE TUBERS in HI FI tend to be non electronic types.
PEEPS who know even a smigen about electronics shy away from tubes,
because using tube circuits is like commuting to work every day on a horse.:1:

I disgree with you on several points;

One, that tube amps are somehow very distorted. Most well made tube amps have very good THD measurments within their specified power ratings. Certainly the specs on mine are well under 1% until it reaches rated power (.05% for the first several watts) . Even after that the distortion rises gradually into clipping. Most good SS amps have vanishing levels of distortion until clipping and then produce a sharp "clipped" waveform. If you've got an amp that is properly powered for the speakers it's hooked to then by the time you reach clipping with either a tubed _OR_ SS amp your pushing your speakers well into distortion. Even good speakers distort on the order of 5-10% or more when played above ~95dB or so. So, it's a good bet is that if your hearing distortion, look to your speakers.

Two, that tubed amps are somehow unatainable for the "average Joe". With the Chinese onslaught of GOOD tubed amps, you can get into the game for well under 1k. I would call that pretty cheap when we're talking "HI-FI". Even if you wanted to go with classic gear then a decent older US tubed amp like a Dynaco can be had for under a grand. Sure it's a little more expensive than a panny reciever,

I will give you that there's a unique "tubed" sound to tubed amps, but i would say that it is mostly from the higher output impedence at the taps. Higher output impedence affects the frequency response of the speakers and tends to roll off the highs although it does NOT filter them. Good output transformers often have response well into the 100's of thousands of Hz which gives a very extended high frequency, if slightly rolled off because of impedence issues.

theaudiohobby
06-07-2010, 09:49 AM
It's certainly fine by me that you don't understand the auditory system sensitivity difference between even and odd order harmonics.
rw

What's the relevance of the excerpt to your contention that tubes have "superior spectral distribution"? Over here, we say you are 'blagging'.

E-Stat
06-07-2010, 09:54 AM
Now I'm convinced that all I need is a 200 - 300 watt pure Class A amp, so I think a pair of Pass Labs XA200.5 monos would do the trick:
With my power hungry speakers, I would likely opt for the X600.5. It uses the same singled ended A front end, massive chassis, power supply and output stage of the XA200.5, but runs AB at the top end of its power range.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-07-2010, 12:06 PM
In otherwords, you have precisely zero evidence to support of what is supposedly a well-accepted theory, or proven fact as you put it. Digital encoding schemes are at the heart of telecommunications the world over, if digital induced agitation were an issue, it would be widely known and published.

We are not talking about speech here, we are talking music only. If you choose not to beleive what I have stated, that's your business. I am not here to convince anyone of anything, I gave up that battle years ago, and it will not start again with you.

Who said anything about agitation? I said less relaxed. There is a difference.

Are you asking me to produce the paper? Hey, I know it exists, but I didn't purchase it, and I have no interest in doing so just to appease you. So if you think the evidence is not there, bask in your own ignorance, I don't care. Even if I did purchase it, I could not post it as it would be against AES rules.


My original proposition was the output of a DAC is an analog signal, a continuous waveform by definition. Your claim that the analog signal at the DAC output is not exactly identical to the original analog signal is a strawman.

Once again, that is your opinion, and you are welcomed to keep it. My claim is the fact they are not identical goes along way in explaining why each sounds different even when using the same microphones mixer, amps and speakers(and with zero processing).




At -96dB in an undithered 16-bit system across the entire passband and greater than -100dB in a dithered one, I think not. tape noise in analog tape was so bad, it required equalisation (i.e. Dolby) to mitigate it's effects.

Hey, both examples require bandaids, which is why I prefer high resolution over all of them.



not sure what your point is here, anti-aliasing is an integral part of DAC design, and like any other engineering endeavour there are trade-offs.

Exactly my point.


There are any number of reasons why the scenario you describe above can happen, however none of these reasons invalidate the basic fact that the output of a DAC is an analog signal that closely resembles the encoded analog signal within the limits of practical digital design and theory. Secondly, an analog audio signal irrespective of it's source, be it a DAC or a pure analog component is always a continuous signal.

I never said that what leaves the DAC is not a analog signal, my point is that its waveform is different from an all analog signal, and that can account to why our ears respond differently to each's output.

theaudiohobby
06-08-2010, 12:08 AM
We are not talking about speech here, we are talking music only. If you choose not to beleive what I have stated, that's your business. I am not here to convince anyone of anything, I gave up that battle years ago, and it will not start again with you.
Differentiating between music and speech for the purposes of telecommunications (http://www.itu.int/en/pages/default.aspx) is a false distinction.

Who said anything about agitation? I said less relaxed. There is a difference. Ok

Are you asking me to produce the paper? Hey, I know it exists, but I didn't purchase it, and I have no interest in doing so just to appease you. So if you think the evidence is not there, bask in your own ignorance, I don't care. Even if I did purchase it, I could not post it as it would be against AES rules.
I did not ask you post the paper, I asked you to state the name of the paper or any other pertinent paper for that matter. By definition, an accepted theory would be documented in multiple places.

Once again, that is your opinion, and you are welcomed to keep it. My claim is the fact they are not identical goes along way in explaining why each sounds different even when using the same microphones mixer, amps and speakers(and with zero processing).
Here you are simply wrong, I have posted a link to an academic digital theory primer (http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/audio/advice/an-introduction-to-digital-audio/) to make the point. You previously said "Let's start with the waveform. Once a analog signal is encoded to 16bit resolution, it appears as a stair stepped waveform, unlike a recorded analog which is more rounded. A DAC see's that waveform, and attempts to transcode that waveform exactly as it is represented - a series of snapshots that represent a stair stepped pattern" . However the primer says

"Diagram 2a shows an acoustic sine wave with sample points at regular intervals in time from right to left on the x-axis. The sample values shown in Diagram 2b create the digital representation of the wave file shown in Diagram 2c. A low pass filter is used upon output to smooth the edges of the new digital wave, which represent added high frequencies, with the resultant wave shown in Diagram 2d."

In otherwords, the DAC produces a pretty decent analog waveform, not a stair stepped pattern, once anti-aliasing is applied, which is as one would expect given sampling theory.


http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/images/ITDA-02-sampling1.jpg

I never said that what leaves the DAC is not a analog signal, my point is that its waveform is different from an all analog signal, and that can account to why our ears respond differently to each's output. Well, as the primer clearly illustrates your original contention is simply wrong, the output of the DAC is not a stair-stepped waveform, after anti-aliasing, the resultant analog waveform is smooth and similar to (or in your words, looks like) the original waveform . and by extension your deduction about sound differences due to differences in waveform pattern is also invalid.

Feanor
06-08-2010, 03:14 AM
...
Well, as the primer clearly illustrates your original contention is simply wrong, the output of the DAC is not a stair-stepped waveform, after anti-aliasing, the resultant analog waveform is smooth and similar to (or in your words, looks like) the original waveform . and by extension your deduction about sound differences due to differences in waveform pattern is also invalid.
To me it's all very confusing. As I understood the Nyquist Theorem, (granted I'll never understand it perfectly), a sound wave can in principle be perfectly reproduce up to 1/2 the sampling frequency. E.g. if the sampling rate is 44 kHz, then 22 kHz can be perfectly reproduced. But there are various demons which a technically unsophisticated person like myself can see affecting the source signal to the ADC => DAC result ...

Equipment problem #1: incorrect measurement of the amplitude of the source signal, i.e. getting the bits right
Equipment problem #2: getting the ADC and subsequently DAC timing right, i.e. sampling at precisely the right rate, i.e. preventing "jitter"
Technical problem #1, 2, ... etc.: eliminating the spurious sound of samples about 1/2 the sampling frequency, i.e. how do you dump the frequencies above 22 kHz (in case of CD) which are noise? I suppose this might be dealt with more or less well. The techniques of anti-aliasing, dithering, and filtering are very obscure to me, Except I think dithering has to do with randomizing the digital noise -- signal above 22 kHz -- which would otherwise variy directly with the "good" signal below 22 kHz). Also, I understand that filtering can (or must?) affect the phase of the signal below the 1/2 sample rate frequency.
Psycho-accoustic problem: do sounds above concious audibilty, say 20+ kHz, really have no effect on sound perceptions?In any case it's obvious that the source sound, (analog), will include frequencies above 1/2 the sample rate, so will not be identical to the ADC => DAC's signal however prefectly the sound below 1/2 are reproduced.

I'd appreciate further clarification of these issues though I can't guarantee I'd understand what you're saying.

poppachubby
06-08-2010, 05:31 AM
I'm with you Bill, it's alot to digest. One thing I am wondering about is oversampling.

My Magnavox has 4 times OS. Is less OS substantial in terms of arriving to a sound closer to NO oversampling? Or is it once you OS, regardless of times, the result is the same.

I have always made the naive assumption that less oversampling would be desirable, for someone who enjoys Non-OS.

I hope my question is clear enough.

E-Stat
06-08-2010, 06:57 AM
http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/images/ITDA-02-sampling1.jpg
Well, as the primer clearly illustrates your original contention is simply wrong, the output of the DAC is not a stair-stepped waveform, after anti-aliasing, the resultant analog waveform is smooth and similar to (or in your words, looks like) the original waveform
How can anyone possibly disagree with a cute little picture like that? ;)

rw

E-Stat
06-08-2010, 07:13 AM
Or is it once you OS, regardless of times, the result is the same.
The problem remains with the need to filter content beyond the converter's ability to sample. Any and ALL content not filtered will necessarily be perceived as 100% distortion. A Nyquist sampler (non OS) must perform the steep and absolute filtering before the A to D converter requiring complex filters. In this case, it is not necessarily the simpler solution. Over sampling allows multiple filters used at higher ranges that do not effect the audible band to the same degree. Red Book playback must necessarily trade some bandwidth for phase integrity. There is an Ayre player which allows you to choose which profile you want for a given recording. Which is why hi-rez is inherently superior - because simpler filters can be used at far higher frequencies leaving the audible band completely intact. It obviates the technical challenges that transcend theory which does not work in practice.

Sir T is among many recording engineers who have taken the feed directly from mics and compared the result stored in multiple formats and found Red Book lacking. That is where the rubber hits the road, not the presentation of simple graphs.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-08-2010, 10:04 AM
Differentiating between music and speech for the purposes of telecommunications (http://www.itu.int/en/pages/default.aspx) is a false distinction.

Ok,


I did not ask you post the paper, I asked you to state the name of the paper or any other pertinent paper for that matter. By definition, an accepted theory would be documented in multiple places.

Since I read the paper while passing the exibit, I didn't pay attention to the name of the paper or who did it. I just ask what the long line was for while attending the convention, and the person I was with put that white paper in my face. I asked was it credible, and the guy I was with(who actually WAS interested in it) told me it passed peer review, nobody is challenging it. I read it, I know it exists, but it was not my interest. It is still not my interest, and I am not going to spend my time chasing it.


Here you are simply wrong, I have posted a link to an academic digital theory primer (http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/audio/advice/an-introduction-to-digital-audio/) to make the point. You previously said "Let's start with the waveform. Once a analog signal is encoded to 16bit resolution, it appears as a stair stepped waveform, unlike a recorded analog which is more rounded. A DAC see's that waveform, and attempts to transcode that waveform exactly as it is represented - a series of snapshots that represent a stair stepped pattern" . However the primer says

"Diagram 2a shows an acoustic sine wave with sample points at regular intervals in time from right to left on the x-axis. The sample values shown in Diagram 2b create the digital representation of the wave file shown in Diagram 2c. A low pass filter is used upon output to smooth the edges of the new digital wave, which represent added high frequencies, with the resultant wave shown in Diagram 2d."

In otherwords, the DAC produces a pretty decent analog waveform, not a stair stepped pattern, once anti-aliasing is applied, which is as one would expect given sampling theory.

I am not debating on whether you see a analog waveform after reconstruction(anti aliasing is a front loaded process not a rear loaded one, reconstruction is done after conversion) we both agreed what is done is an analog waveform. My contention(and what I have seen) is the digital waveform does NOT look like an all analog waveform, even though they are both analog. I said it sawtoothed BEFORE conversion, and that is what the DAC is reconstructing, snapshots of the signals, not the signal in its entirety like analog represents(at least that was what I was trying to say.)



http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/images/ITDA-02-sampling1.jpg
Well, as the primer clearly illustrates your original contention is simply wrong, the output of the DAC is not a stair-stepped waveform, after anti-aliasing, the resultant analog waveform is smooth and similar to (or in your words, looks like) the original waveform . and by extension your deduction about sound differences due to differences in waveform pattern is also invalid.

Your dependency on theory shows that you have zero experience in real life. If all things were perfect, you would be correct. In the real world, all things are not perfect. When a signal passes through a real life DAC, it is not a perfect process that mirrors you visual example. Theory often fails in the presence of real life ADC and DAC chips. I have not heard a perfect digital system(or analog for that matter).

If all is perfect as you describe, then why oversampling? You shouldn't need it all is perfect right?

Once again, if the two waveforms are exactly alike as you say, then why do they sound so different even when the same equipment is used?

theaudiohobby
06-08-2010, 04:49 PM
Equipment problem #1: incorrect measurement of the amplitude of the source signal, i.e. getting the bits right
This is a quality assurance issue, If the ADC is unable measure amplitude correctly, it’s broken. That said, there are overload conditions, where the ADC input is overloaded and under this conditions, bits recorded would be wrong, herefore care is typically taken overloading the ADC. Sir Terence is a professional engineer, so he will be in a better position to discuss this one.

Equipment problem #2: getting the ADC and subsequently DAC timing right, i.e. sampling at precisely the right rate, i.e. preventing "jitter"
This is an issue in professional recording and the traditional solution has been to slave all converters to a single clock. See some John Atkinson’s recordings notes


Technical problem #1, 2, ... etc.: eliminating the spurious sound of samples about 1/2 the sampling frequency, i.e. how do you dump the frequencies above 22 kHz (in case of CD) which are noise? I suppose this might be dealt with more or less well. The techniques of anti-aliasing, dithering, and filtering are very obscure to me, Except I think dithering has to do with randomizing the digital noise -- signal above 22 kHz -- which would otherwise vary directly with the "good" signal below 22 kHz). Also, I understand that filtering can (or must?) affect the phase of the signal below the 1/2 sample rate frequency.

Dithering is a process that decorrelates quantisation noise from the digital signal across the entire bandwidth, it’s separate and different from anti-aliasing where noise, specifically, alias images above 22kHz are removed by the anti-aliasing filter i.e. low-pass filter. At this junction a new concept comes into play the passband and the transition band. The passband of CD is typically DC-20kHz, above that you have the transition band, the anti-aliasing filter generally does most of its filtering in the transition band. Filtering affects phase below ˝ sample rate frequency, however if the transition band is suffiently large, phase distortion in the passband is negligible. IMO, this is one of the area where a higher sampling rate or oversampling has some benefits.


Psycho-accoustic problem: do sounds above concious audibilty, say 20+ kHz, really have no effect on sound perceptions?Not sure, there is only way to answer that question, run controlled listening tests.

Feanor
06-08-2010, 06:57 PM
...
Dithering is a process that decorrelates quantisation noise from the digital signal across the entire bandwidth, it’s separate and different from anti-aliasing where noise, specifically, alias images above 22kHz are removed by the anti-aliasing filter i.e. low-pass filter. At this junction a new concept comes into play the passband and the transition band. The passband of CD is typically DC-20kHz, above that you have the transition band, the anti-aliasing filter generally does most of its filtering in the transition band. Filtering affects phase below ˝ sample rate frequency, however if the transition band is suffiently large, phase distortion in the passband is negligible. IMO, this is one of the area where a higher sampling rate or oversampling has some benefits.
...
Thess clarifications help, thanks.

Is dithering always used? Or is it used mainly for downsampling? Or maybe I should ask for a general definition of "quantisation noise".

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-09-2010, 10:59 AM
Thess clarifications help, thanks.

Is dithering always used? Or is it used mainly for downsampling? Or maybe I should ask for a general definition of "quantisation noise".

Dither is only used during downconversion.

Quantization noise(better known as quantization error) is the difference between the actual analog value and quantized digital value. It happens when rounding or truncation occurs. Quantization refers to approximating the output by one of a discrete and finite set of values.

theaudiohobby
06-09-2010, 11:20 AM
This clarifications help, thanks.

Is dithering always used? Or is it used mainly for downsampling? Or maybe I should ask for a general definition of "quantisation noise".

Quantization noise, also known as Quantization error is a rounding error which represents the difference between the Analog Input and Quantized sample, As the quantized sample is alway bandlimited, i.e. bandwith is not infinite, there is always a quantisation error, consequently the size of the quantization error is very much dependent on the sample rate and wordlength. As the sampling rate and the wordlength increase, the quantization error decreases. It's called Quantization noise when the error is modelled as noise. The big issue with quantization noise is that it is not totally decorrelated from the signal and that's where dither comes in, dither is random noise that when added to the signal in a deterministic fashion, decorrelates the quantization error from the signal. This process improves the output of the digitization process. And yes in most modern ADCs, dither is employed, due to it's beneficial impact on the quality of the digitized signal. As an aside, tape noise is a form of natural dither, it's random nature effectively decorrelates quantization noise from the signal during the digitization process.

Sorry for the late response, I have been a bit busy over the last few days.

theaudiohobby
06-09-2010, 02:49 PM
I'm with you Bill, it's alot to digest. One thing I am wondering about is oversampling.

My Magnavox has 4 times OS. Is less OS substantial in terms of arriving to a sound closer to NO oversampling? Or is it once you OS, regardless of times, the result is the same.

I have always made the naive assumption that less oversampling would be desirable, for someone who enjoys Non-OS.


IMO, oversampling is a bit of red herring as the key differentiating factor between Non-oversampling and oversampling DACs is the lack of digital anti-aliasing filter rather than th e presence or not of oversampling (at least that's what the marketing blogs say :wink5: ). The lack of a digital anti-aliasing filter is justified on the basis that it's absence results in less ringing and phase distortion, however this is a trade-off, as the HF spurie (alias images) leak into passband and distort the signal.

The issue here is not complexity but stepness, the transition band in the CD without oversampling is very narrow between 20kHz-22.1kHz, a steep filter is necessary, however with an oversampling DAC running 4X, transition band increasea ro 20-88.4kHz, which is about 30X larger, this makes very gentle filter slopes a viable option.

Arguably, you could design an oversampling DAC without a digital anti-aliasing filter and get away with it as the HF components (see prior post) that potential distort the signal are at much higher frequency. At 4X oversampling, that's at >88kHz.

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 07:51 AM
Dither is only used during downconversion.

You mean explicit use of dither as opposed to fixed dither used by a given ADC design for improved performance, correct?

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 08:27 AM
Since I read the paper while passing the exibit, I didn't pay attention to the name of the paper or who did it. I just ask what the long line was for while attending the convention, and the person I was with put that white paper in my face. I asked was it credible, and the guy I was with(who actually WAS interested in it) told me it passed peer review, nobody is challenging it. I read it, I know it exists, but it was not my interest. It is still not my interest, and I am not going to spend my time chasing it.
I hear you, so much for the widely accepted theory.

I am not debating on whether you see a analog waveform after reconstruction(anti aliasing is a front loaded process not a rear loaded one, reconstruction is done after conversion) we both agreed what is done is an analog waveform. My contention(and what I have seen) is the digital waveform does NOT look like an all analog waveform, even though they are both analog. I said it sawtoothed BEFORE conversion, and that is what the DAC is reconstructing, snapshots of the signals, not the signal in its entirety like analog represents(at least that was what I was trying to say.)
I am baffled by your commentary, why would anyone care about the digital waveform that feeds the DAC? It's an intermidiate process and the DAC is the intended consumer not human ears. The DAC can read the data stream from the modulated carrier signal without issue and recreate the original analog signal, so why the contention?

Your dependency on theory shows that you have zero experience in real life. If all things were perfect, you would be correct. In the real world, all things are not perfect. When a signal passes through a real life DAC, it is not a perfect process that mirrors you visual example. Theory often fails in the presence of real life ADC and DAC chips. I have not heard a perfect digital system(or analog for that matter).
The theory is the basis for the real-life implementation. Without it, the real-life would not exist.

If all is perfect as you describe, then why oversampling? You shouldn't need it all is perfect right?That's a separate discussion, right? By the way, this is the second time you raised the perfection strawman.

Once again, if the two waveforms are exactly alike as you say, then why do they sound so different even when the same equipment is used?

I disagree, but that's another separate discussion.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 08:35 AM
You mean explicit use of dither as opposed to fixed dither used by a given ADC design to improved performance, correct?

Correct. I would not use a A/D converter that had fixed dither.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 08:45 AM
I hear you, so much for the widely accepted theory.

It was accepted by those who critiqued it, those who read it, and those who experienced the test themselves. Those who read and hang on to basic theory may have missed its reach.


I am baffled by your commentary, why would anyone care about the digital waveform that feeds the DAC? It's an intermidiate process and the DAC is the intended consumer not human ears. The DAC can read the data stream from the modulated carrier signal without issue and recreate the original analog signal, so why the contention?

Maybe that is a question you need to ask yourself.


The theory is the basis for the real-life implementation. Without it, the real-life would not exist.

It may be the basis for real time implementation, but it is not a real time reality using real equipment in real environments.


That's a separate discussion, right? By the way, this is the second time you raised the perfection strawman.

And this is the second time you have refused to answer the basic question. You should be able to support your theories with answers.



I disagree, but that's another separate discussion.

And with that, I guess this whole stream minutia is concluded.

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 08:56 AM
Correct. I would not use a A/D converter that had fixed dither.

The larger question is do you have a choice in the matter? :wink5: Here's a random link (http://www.rme-audio.de/english/techinfo/dither.htm) from the web for you. And here's an excerpt for your education.

All A/D converters have built-in dither. It is a property of the converter chip, manifesting itself as an unavoidable noise floor. A/D converter chip manufacturer's use this noise - on purpose - to linearise the chip's behavior at lower signal levels.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 09:12 AM
The larger question is do you have a choice in the matter? :wink5: Here's a random link (http://www.rme-audio.de/english/techinfo/dither.htm) from the web for you. And here's an excerpt for your education.

All A/D converters have built-in dither. It is a property of the converter chip, manifesting itself as an unavoidable noise floor. A/D converter chip manufacturer's use this noise - on purpose - to linearise the chip's behavior at lower signal levels.

Some chip manufacturers use that noise to linearize their chips, not all of them. Can't make global statements without verification can we?

If thermal noise was enough to deal with the issue, then engineers would not need to use dither at all ever. That has never been the case when I work in 16bit, so this angle is a bit of a red herring in and of itself. No thanks to your supposed education.

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 09:16 AM
And with that, I guess this whole stream minutia is concluded.

Correct, as you are now tripping over yourself.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 09:26 AM
Correct, as you are now tripping over yourself.

Posturing is totally unnecessary, move on dude.

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 12:44 PM
Some chip manufacturers use that noise to linearize their chips, not all of them.

:rolleyes: What do the others do to linearize their chips, sprinkle them with fairy dust?


Can't make global statements without verification can we?
:yikes:


If thermal noise was enough to deal with the issue, then engineers would not need to use dither at all ever. That has never been the case when I work in 16bit, so this angle is a bit of a red herring in and of itself. No thanks to your supposed education. :rolleyes: Where did that come from, you've gone off on another tangent, the article discusses the use of dither in ADC chips, what's with the thermal noise?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 01:14 PM
There is nothing more to be added to where this last bit of foolishness is taking us.

theaudiohobby
06-10-2010, 01:54 PM
There is nothing more to be added to where this last bit of foolishness is taking us.

This is where (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=329682&postcount=110) I started "the output of a DAC is an analogue signal and strictly speaking no one ever really listens to digital but to a analogue output recovered from a digital encoding scheme",
And this is were you were (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=329980&postcount=131) a few posts ago "I am not debating on whether you see a analog waveform after reconstruction(anti aliasing is a front loaded process not a rear loaded one, reconstruction is done after conversion) we both agreed what is done is an analog waveform. My contention(and what I have seen) ..."

As you are now in agreement with my original comments, it's time to call it a day have a good evening.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2010, 02:28 PM
This is where (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=329682&postcount=110) I started "the output of a DAC is an analogue signal and strictly speaking no one ever really listens to digital but to a analogue output recovered from a digital encoding scheme",
And this is were you were (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=329980&postcount=131) a few posts ago "I am not debating on whether you see a analog waveform after reconstruction(anti aliasing is a front loaded process not a rear loaded one, reconstruction is done after conversion) we both agreed what is done is an analog waveform. My contention(and what I have seen) ..."

As you are now in agreement with my original comments, it's time to call it a day have a good evening.

I have asked you this question three times now, so now that we are in agreement with what we already stated we agreed upon, answer my question.

If your contention is that the DAC reconstruction of a signal is the same as a analog based signal with no digital encoding, then why do they sound so different to the ear even on a system that is designed for transparent playback of both? It should by your adherence to theory(and ignorance for real world equipment capabilities to deliver that theory perfectly) they should sound exactly the same, with no measurable difference in frequency response, timbre and tonality, or any other audibly perceptual perimeter.

I am sure the your firm adherence to theory will give you a very convincing answer to this.

And by the way, it is never good to parcel a quote to make a point. Print all of the quote, so the the answer remains in context from beginning to end.

Ajani
06-18-2010, 06:48 AM
Seeing Vincent Audio's new KHV-111MK headphone amplifier [$499.95] on the news section of 6Moons + my thread on the Asgard and Valhalla headphone amps from Schiit Audio reminds me that a major trend seems to be towards headphone users.


So Why Headphone Amps?
A realization. In the old days, audiophiles went up the food chain from the table radio to the console stereo to separate speakers the size of refrigerators and monoblocks that would cook a cat. Today, nobody starts with a table radio. Everyone—and we mean everyone—starts with an iPod and headphones screwed into their ears. Headphones are now the standard.

And what happens when someone decides to lose the earbuds and get some serious headphones? They quickly find that their iPod (or Zune, or laptop, you know what we mean) won’t drive them. Or sounds like crap. Or both.

Now it’s time for them to get a headphone amplifier. Which is where we come in.

I think that quote sums up what's happening with young, potential audiophiles... Some will stick with headphones as their primary (or even only) HiFi setup, while others will advance to speakers.

Florian
06-22-2010, 12:08 AM
I would say the future goes towards downloading. Currently i run a 32Mbit line connected to my MBP and when i am lazy use the optical digital out into my Sphinx DAC. It gets a iTunes Album in less then 45 seconds. On the other hand, i buy a lot of CDs and LPs as well. Its good to feel :2: