Dirty New Shirt VS Clean but Slightly Bleached Shirt [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Dirty New Shirt VS Clean but Slightly Bleached Shirt



Ajani
12-06-2010, 09:44 AM
So if you had a choice between wearing a dirty new shirt or a clean but slightly bleached shirt which would you wear?

So let's apply the dirty new shirt VS clean but slightly bleached shirt phenomenon to audio:

There is an argument that digital cleans all the dirt off analog, but goes a bit too far and bleaches out the sound... so basically an analog recording will have all the sound but also a layer of dirt on top (literally and figuratively), while digital will be perfectly clean but miss a touch of the sound...

So in the case of audio, if you had to choose between preserving all the sound but with some distortion (dirt) added or removing all the disortion and possibly losing a touch of the sound, what would you choose?

Note: This is not meant to be a bash of either digital or analog formats... The way I see it is that too much dirt would distort the music so much that it doesn't sound like the original... On the other hand, too much bleaching would end up with just the barest oultine of what the original sounded like... So essentially a slightly dirty sound might be more faithful to the original than a highly bleached one, and a slightly bleached sound might be more faithful than a very dirty one...

GMichael
12-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Depends on the amount of dirt (does it stank?), and how much bleach was used.

As compared to audio, digital is also much more convenient. And the washed out effect is harder to hear on a cheaper system. +1 for digital in this fast paced "dark grey is ok for black" world. But if you have a large investement in audio, have time to sit back and enjoy it, and don't mind flipping records, +1 for analog.
Maybe there is room for both.

Ajani
12-06-2010, 10:30 AM
Depends on the amount of dirt (does it stank?), and how much bleach was used.

As compared to audio, digital is also much more convenient. And the washed out effect is harder to hear on a cheaper system. +1 for digital in this fast paced "dark grey is ok for black" world. But if you have a large investement in audio, have time to sit back and enjoy it, and don't mind flipping records, +1 for analog.
Maybe there is room for both.

Actually I'm starting to see a possible trend forming where vinyl fans are using a music server as a second source... Which makes sense to me, since we don't always have the time or energy to flip records...

I initially thought it would be CD fans like msyelf who would be quickest to adopt music servers, yet I see as much (if not more) resistance among them than vinyl fans...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-06-2010, 11:26 AM
It really depends on the resolution of the digital system. Using the redbook standard, your analogy might be correct. Raising the resolution up to 24/192khz would clean the dirt just right, without the over bleaching effect.

With digital audio you have to be more specific than just digital. Digital is meaningless in the absence of details and specifics.

atomicAdam
12-06-2010, 11:29 AM
I think this is a bit of a false argument.

I've heard $500,000+ digital based systems and I've heard $500,000+ analog based systems. They both sounded fantastic. The Audio Federation room at RMAF was running an Audio Note CD5 (i think) into a tube amp etc... and it was by far the best sound I heard at the sound.

But conversely I've heard some $15,000 and $100,000 turn tables that were fantastic as well. Didn't sounds like there was a layer of dirt at all.

So, I don't think one really should be choosing between dirt and clean. It really is just about what you like to hear, and what price you can afford.

Maybe the argument applies more to a lower price range than limitless.

-adam

GMichael
12-06-2010, 11:36 AM
I have limits.:nonod:

Ajani
12-06-2010, 01:59 PM
I think this is a bit of a false argument.

I've heard $500,000+ digital based systems and I've heard $500,000+ analog based systems. They both sounded fantastic. The Audio Federation room at RMAF was running an Audio Note CD5 (i think) into a tube amp etc... and it was by far the best sound I heard at the sound.

But conversely I've heard some $15,000 and $100,000 turn tables that were fantastic as well. Didn't sounds like there was a layer of dirt at all.

So, I don't think one really should be choosing between dirt and clean. It really is just about what you like to hear, and what price you can afford.

Maybe the argument applies more to a lower price range than limitless.

-adam

Adam, I understand what you're saying but I don't think it contradicts my argument... At $500K a system should have so little dirt or bleach that you shouldn't be able to notice either dirt or bleach... I would say that at $15K and above, the only dirt a turntable should clearly exhibit is the literal kind resulting in surface noise (snap, crackle & pops)...

But as GM says, we have limits... At more normal budgets, the compromises tend to be more evident...

I see audio this way: all technologies have inherent advantages and disadvantages... For example, if I wanted a system with serious dynamic range, but only had $2K to spend, then I would skip electrostats... However with a budget of $200K, I can buy a pair of stats the length and height of an entire side of my house and capable of flat frequency response down to 10hz...

Ajani
12-06-2010, 02:06 PM
It really depends on the resolution of the digital system. Using the redbook standard, your analogy might be correct. Raising the resolution up to 24/192khz would clean the dirt just right, without the over bleaching effect.

With digital audio you have to be more specific than just digital. Digital is meaningless in the absence of details and specifics.

Agreed... I forgot to mention that I was only referring to CD res and below...

frenchmon
12-06-2010, 05:14 PM
Well if you are like me...you just like good gear so you can enjoy the music.

Last week Peabody and I listened to a T+A turntable that cost I think it was about $10k....sounded great...no dirt..so to speak...nothing but enjoyable music.

last Friday I listed to teh new Bel Canto gear....2 mono amps, Bel Canto pre, and Bel Canto DAC all going through Gallo Strada's and Gallo TR3 sub, and a Vincent tubed CDP with the digital out by passing the tube out. Bel Canto has a tubed character to it...nothing but bliss, enjoyable music cleaned up really well.

Today I have in my 2 channel room the best resolution in digital I have ever heard. A Stello DAC 100 Signiture and the Stello Transport CDT 100. Its all because a good friend let me borrow the Stello gear.

I have been switching out the CDT 100 transport with the Musical Fidelity XRAY v8 CDP and going back and forth between the two CDP's using the Stello DAC. I can honestly report that these two CDPs have the best resolution I have ever heard....and its because of the Stello Dac 100 SIGNITURE...and I've heard a lots of gear.

So I think your dirty new shirt and slightly bleached shirt analogy is really a wash when we get to just enjoying the music that the gear produces.

harley .guy07
12-06-2010, 11:35 PM
I really do believe that digital formats deserve a lot more credit in today's world than they get form the high end crowd. I really think that a person can have a quality digital and analog setup Like Mr Peabody's and get great from both formats. I don't see that either format is bad per say in either direction I think its the equipment used and the system. I personally like my digital setup now so much sense incorporating my new dac and transport or multi disk player that I am not in a huge hurry to set up and fix up my TT that I have because my digital system sounds good. My PS audio dac takes the digital hardness everyone talks about and makes it go away and some great music comes through.

Ajani
12-07-2010, 05:18 AM
Well if you are like me...you just like good gear so you can enjoy the music.

Last week Peabody and I listened to a T+A turntable that cost I think it was about $10k....sounded great...no dirt..so to speak...nothing but enjoyable music.

last Friday I listed to teh new Bel Canto gear....2 mono amps, Bel Canto pre, and Bel Canto DAC all going through Gallo Strada's and Gallo TR3 sub, and a Vincent tubed CDP with the digital out by passing the tube out. Bel Canto has a tubed character to it...nothing but bliss, enjoyable music cleaned up really well.

Today I have in my 2 channel room the best resolution in digital I have ever heard. A Stello DAC 100 Signiture and the Stello Transport CDT 100. Its all because a good friend let me borrow the Stello gear.

I have been switching out the CDT 100 transport with the Musical Fidelity XRAY v8 CDP and going back and forth between the two CDP's using the Stello DAC. I can honestly report that these two CDPs have the best resolution I have ever heard....and its because of the Stello Dac 100 SIGNITURE...and I've heard a lots of gear.

So I think your dirty new shirt and slightly bleached shirt analogy is really a wash when we get to just enjoying the music that the gear produces.

What kind of audiophile are you??? Enjoy the music does not compute!!! You're supposed to listen for the most minor imperfections in every aspect of your system... Now go sit in the corner of shame, with your dunce cap on!!! :hand:

Seriously though, just enjoying the music is the death of audiophilia... The more you are able to just enjoy the music, the less desire you have to upgrade equipment... It's why I find it so amusing when persons in our hobby hate on the iPod generation (many of whom just enjoy the music - thousands of albums) for not wanting to spend thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on a HiFi setup...

So once you talk about just enjoying the music, any audiophile analysis dies a bitter, cold death...

TheHills44060
12-07-2010, 05:31 AM
So once you talk about just enjoying the music, any audiophile analysis dies a bitter, cold death...
Untrue. You upgrade your system in order to get to the place where you can just enjoy the music and it takes analysis to get there. For some the analysis is much quicker than others. For some it takes a whole load of cash and for some it doesn't.

Ajani
12-07-2010, 05:32 AM
I really do believe that digital formats deserve a lot more credit in today's world than they get form the high end crowd. I really think that a person can have a quality digital and analog setup Like Mr Peabody's and get great from both formats. I don't see that either format is bad per say in either direction I think its the equipment used and the system. I personally like my digital setup now so much sense incorporating my new dac and transport or multi disk player that I am not in a huge hurry to set up and fix up my TT that I have because my digital system sounds good. My PS audio dac takes the digital hardness everyone talks about and makes it go away and some great music comes through.

Frankly, I think that the respect of the "high end crowd" is irrelevant... New technology doesn't come from them, it comes from the mass market and they historically resist as long as possible and then eventually start producing "statement products" designed to push the limits of that tech...

Left up to the high end crowd I wouldn't have either of my 2 music server based systems... I'd probably be cranking up the gramophone about now...

Ajani
12-07-2010, 05:34 AM
Untrue. You upgrade your system in order to get to the place where you can just enjoy the music and it takes analysis to get there. For some the analysis is much quicker than others. For some it takes a whole load of cash and for some it doesn't.

And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....

Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...

So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...

So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....

TheHills44060
12-07-2010, 05:36 AM
And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....

Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...

So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...

So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....
Didn't die for me. I love helping friends and families build there own systems to suit their tastes. That way it always keeps the hobby fresh even if you have reached your own goals.

GMichael
12-07-2010, 05:59 AM
And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....

Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...

So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...

So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.

Ajani
12-07-2010, 06:08 AM
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.

Well, you could do as thehills does and analyze other persons' systems...

As for keeping an ear out, I see that much like a married man enjoying looking at a pretty girl... You're off the market, but you can still enjoy the view (sound)... But it's not nearly the same as being single and on the prowl... Or doing the kind of heavy analysis that many audiophiles do...

TheHills44060
12-07-2010, 06:17 AM
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

GMichael
12-07-2010, 06:30 AM
Well, you could do as thehills does and analyze other persons' systems...

As for keeping an ear out, I see that much like a married man enjoying looking at a pretty girl... You're off the market, but you can still enjoy the view (sound)......

Which brings me to The Hills' avatar. Um, nice hills, Hills.

Feanor
12-07-2010, 06:34 AM
When I got into "hi-fi" almost 40 years ago in the early '70s, it was ostensibly about high fidelity, i.e. accuracy. It remained that way, at least notionally, until I my interest flagged in the late '80s. I lost interest around then mostly, (and reasonably), because I was doing a lot of other things instead of serious listening to music.

When my interest in hi-fi, (and music), was revived in the early '00s, I discoved that audiophiles were no longer exclusively interested accuracy. There had emerged an "accuracy versus euphony" dichotomy. The opposing parties didn't always understand their positions: clear advocates of euphony often insisted, irrationally, that what they liked was actual accuracy.

In the first place, a large segment of listeners don't know what accuracy is because they never listen to live acoustic music. (And pardon me for saying so but I think classical music is the definitive acoustic music, more so than jazz, because of the large scale orchestral and choral works.) But acoustic listeners, too, have a problem because there isn't a clear-cut "live" sound to constitute a standard: sound varies by performance, instrument, venue, and one's seat in a particular venue. Thus even some live acoustic listeners, confused by a variety of experiences, define accuracy in terms terms of what they like, not actuality.

The problem, IMHO, is greatly exacerbated by recording practice. It is common practice to record acoustic performance with numerous microphones placed very close to the performers. How easy, then, is it for this practice to deliver the 5th row center, audience perspective? The answer is not very, and some producers & sound engineers are a lot more successful than others. The close-up sound is generally more strident than one hears in the typical orchestra section seat where multiple reflect sounds with different volumes and time delays merge together to soften the sound.

The long & short of the "beached" sound phenomenon is, IMO, the combination of the facts that (1) that the sonic actuality is not as sweet, warm, and bloomy as people imagine in their mind's ear, and (2) recording practice often fails to deliver optimum sound from the audience members' perspective.

Ajani
12-07-2010, 06:58 AM
When I got into "hi-fi" almost 40 years ago in the early '70s, it was ostensibly about high fidelity, i.e. accuracy. It remained that way, at least notionally, until I my interest flagged in the late '80s. I lost interest around then mostly, (and reasonably), because I was doing a lot of other things instead of serious listening to music.

When my interest in hi-fi, (and music), was revived in the early '00s, I discoved that audiophiles were no longer exclusively interested accuracy. There had emerged an "accuracy versus euphony" dichotomy. The opposing parties didn't always understand their positions: clear advocates of euphony often insisted, irrationally, that what they liked was actual accuracy.

In the first place, a large segment of listeners don't know what accuracy is because they never listen to live acoustic music. (And pardon me for saying so but I think classical music is the definitive acoustic music, more so than jazz, because of the large scale orchestral and choral works.) But acoustic listeners, too, have a problem because there isn't a clear-cut "live" sound to constitute a standard: sound varies by performance, instrument, venue, and one's seat in a particular venue. Thus even some live acoustic listeners, confused by a variety of experiences, define accuracy in terms terms of what they like, not actuality.

The problem, IMHO, is greatly exacerbated by recording practice. It is common practice to record acoustic performance with numerous microphones placed very close to the performers. How easy, then, is it for this practice to deliver the 5th row center, audience perspective? The answer is not very, and some producers & sound engineers are a lot more successful than others. The close-up sound is generally more strident than one hears in the typical orchestra section seat where multiple reflect sounds with different volumes and time delays merge together to soften the sound.

The long & short of the "beached" sound phenomenon is, IMO, the combination of the facts that (1) that the sonic actuality is not as sweet, warm, and bloomy as people imagine in their mind's ear, and (2) recording practice often fails to deliver optimum sound from the audience members' perspective.

Not sure I agree on classical as the definitive music for live performance... Since as you noted, the concert hall is such a major part of that experience that it can skew persons into thinking that all music should have sound coming from all around you...

I do agree that many audiophiles don't listen to live (un-amplified) music... Just based on many of the comments I see... When I saw complaints that a digital source or pair of speakers occasionally makes a recording sound harsh, while their speakers or source is never harsh or bright, I know those persons haven't listened to enough live music... Crashing cymbals should be harsh and bright... Vocals can be as well, depending on the singer... And some albums are just badly recorded.... So if your system makes everything sound pleasant to listen to, then it can't be truly accurate...

Feanor
12-07-2010, 10:45 AM
Not sure I agree on classical as the definitive music for live performance... Since as you noted, the concert hall is such a major part of that experience that it can skew persons into thinking that all music should have sound coming from all around you...
...
Of course it's true that the concert hall has a huge effect on the sound -- I said as much earlier. And it's true that a jazz trio (unamplified) is about as good as classical trio for sound definition, but equally, the sound of the former is going to vary with the venue just as much as the latter. On the other hand when was the last time anybody heard a 100 piece jazz ensemble? Or a 60 person jazz chorus? (Well maybe some are so lucky as to hear large African-American church choirs pretty often.)

But what "live" listeners do is to derive a sort of "consensus" of what accuracy is; a sort of amalgam of their experiences. In this regard what I said earlier is that a lot of people, in developing their personal consensus, have a sort of "confirmation bias" in favor of a sweeter, smoother sound than the typical actuality. (TAS' Jonathan Valin comes to mind as an example of such a person. Ammo for RGA and Ajani: is this why he likes the Maggie 1.6 and 1.7's so much?)

atomicAdam
12-07-2010, 12:12 PM
So if your system makes everything sound pleasant to listen to, then it can't be truly accurate...


This one time in band camp.....

No seriously though - this one show I was at, I was sick and not really feeling well and it was this god awful boring Brazilian soft folk singing absolute crap (IMHO) (was there for a girl - it was hot while it lasted - anyways) the snare drum was so sharp and pricing it felt like it was being played six inches from my face. It was a truly awful experience. And to that point I don't like a system that replicated this amount of live. I'm very sorry, but I don't often goto live/acoustic or not/ shows because the sound is so awful. I like a system at home, where I can take a poorly recorded (sharp in this case) record and listen to it. Sometimes the music is awesome and the recording engineer is deaf.

I give props to a system that can reflect the annoying and awfulness of a live event, but the reason why I have a great system at home is so that I can enjoy the music.

Anyways - just my two cents.

basite
12-07-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't know,

why would there necessarily be a "layer of dirt" on analog audio formats (vinyl)? and if there is, you can clean that, just like you wash a T-Shirt. A good RCM is your best friend when collecting vinyl.

that said, I'd go for the "dirty" shirt...

Ajani
12-07-2010, 12:48 PM
This one time in band camp.....

No seriously though - this one show I was at, I was sick and not really feeling well and it was this god awful boring Brazilian soft folk singing absolute crap (IMHO) (was there for a girl - it was hot while it lasted - anyways) the snare drum was so sharp and pricing it felt like it was being played six inches from my face. It was a truly awful experience. And to that point I don't like a system that replicated this amount of live. I'm very sorry, but I don't often goto live/acoustic or not/ shows because the sound is so awful. I like a system at home, where I can take a poorly recorded (sharp in this case) record and listen to it. Sometimes the music is awesome and the recording engineer is deaf.

I give props to a system that can reflect the annoying and awfulness of a live event, but the reason why I have a great system at home is so that I can enjoy the music.

Anyways - just my two cents.

Nothing wrong with that... As long as you are honest about that preference... An issue only arises when audiophiles claim that a system that is incapable of showing just how bad a recording is, is truly accurate...

pixelthis
12-07-2010, 01:22 PM
So if you had a choice between wearing a dirty new shirt or a clean but slightly bleached shirt which would you wear?

So let's apply the dirty new shirt VS clean but slightly bleached shirt phenomenon to audio:

There is an argument that digital cleans all the dirt off analog, but goes a bit too far and bleaches out the sound... so basically an analog recording will have all the sound but also a layer of dirt on top (literally and figuratively), while digital will be perfectly clean but miss a touch of the sound...

So in the case of audio, if you had to choose between preserving all the sound but with some distortion (dirt) added or removing all the disortion and possibly losing a touch of the sound, what would you choose?

Note: This is not meant to be a bash of either digital or analog formats... The way I see it is that too much dirt would distort the music so much that it doesn't sound like the original... On the other hand, too much bleaching would end up with just the barest oultine of what the original sounded like... So essentially a slightly dirty sound might be more faithful to the original than a highly bleached one, and a slightly bleached sound might be more faithful than a very dirty one...

Its the same as the old joke about asking an old farmer on the side of the road for
directions, and he says..."Well, you can't get there from here".
In other words you start out with a flawed premise and get even more off the beam as you go along.
Analog is not "dirty", but analog formats have their shortcomings. The best recording
used to be reel to reel copies of studio masters.
I HAVE several records that are "direct" copies from masters, don't know how much hype
is involved, but they not only sound great, they used to freak cassette freaks out
when they asked why I still messed with them, they were so good.
Digital, on the other hand, is not meant to "clean" anything, but as a result of its nature
of just reproducing music and leaving junk behind, that happens sometimes
What the digital haters decry is the "non musical sound", which they derive from their feelings and "intuition". Digital is just a better way of doing things, thats all.
I imagine that when we started driving cars there were old farts that wouldn't give up their
horses, there are always some stubborn types that refuse to change.
THEY love playing with their turntables, their old records, imagining nuances in the sound
that a German Shepard couldn't discern, and they are quite harmless, really.
I still listen to records, because I have records collected over a lifetime that are irreplaceable, but I am not so delusional as to think for a minute that they are superiour
to even the most roughly recorded party mix CD .
Thats just not reality, and it has nothing to do with analog being "dirty" and Digital being
"clean". Either can be clean or dirty. THE QUESTION is, which is better, and thats digital,
of course. Even commuter prop planes use turbines, only the cheapest planes use
piston engines, because progress marches on. A man from 1850 would find a
turntable from 1960 incomprehensible, and a man from 1960 would have a hard time believing that I have over a hundred albums on an eight gig USB drive smaller than a cigarette lighter. Whats sad is that the guy from 1960 would probably embrace the USB drive as a fantastic invention from the future, while the analog crowd decry it as "crap".
Analog record lovers can hang onto their tube "sound" and ultra expensive turntables
forever, its a free country, but they are already irrelevant.
SO ARE most audiophiles, for that matter. The future has arrived , and you carry it in your pocket.:1:

atomicAdam
12-07-2010, 01:50 PM
but I am not so delusional as to think for a minute that they are superiour
to even the most roughly recorded party mix CD .
Thats just not reality, and it has nothing to do with analog being "dirty" and Digital being
"clean". Either can be clean or dirty. THE QUESTION is, which is better, and thats digital,
of course. Even commuter prop planes use turbines, only the cheapest planes use
piston engines, because progress marches on. A man from 1850 would find a
turntable from 1960 incomprehensible, and a man from 1960 would have a hard time believing that I have over a hundred albums on an eight gig USB drive smaller than a cigarette lighter. Whats sad is that the guy from 1960 would probably embrace the USB drive as a fantastic invention from the future, while the analog crowd decry it as "crap".
Analog record lovers can hang onto their tube "sound" and ultra expensive turntables
forever, its a free country, but they are already irrelevant.
SO ARE most audiophiles, for that matter. The future has arrived , and you carry it in your pocket.:1:

I'm curious what high end analog sourced systems you've heard. Could you please give me some examples of system in the $100,000k+ level you've heard? Either tape sourced or turntable sourced.

frenchmon
12-07-2010, 03:02 PM
What kind of audiophile are you??? Enjoy the music does not compute!!! You're supposed to listen for the most minor imperfections in every aspect of your system... Now go sit in the corner of shame, with your dunce cap on!!! :hand:

lol your to funny Ajani.



Seriously though, just enjoying the music is the death of audiophilia... The more you are able to just enjoy the music, the less desire you have to upgrade equipment... It's why I find it so amusing when persons in our hobby hate on the iPod generation (many of whom just enjoy the music - thousands of albums) for not wanting to spend thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on a HiFi setup...

So once you talk about just enjoying the music, any audiophile analysis dies a bitter, cold death...

Ah...IF you read the posting again youd understand that I said good gear...nothing good about an iPOD...I have a portable music player and really cant sit down in my sweet spot with a nice beverage after a hard days work and enjoy the music the way I want to Ajani. Whats the point spending hundred and thosands of dollars on good gear if you dont listen to what it can do? Being an audio hobbyist is more than just listening critically and looking at written stats. No sir...You see, we look at written stats and then listen critically first to see if it meets our expectations...if so, then we enjoy.

A football team has to play as a team to get good results....oh yes they have their individual parts but they must play as a team. Same with music most of the time, unless you are listing to a solo. When I listen critically, I want to hear the mid range. Is it recessed or to forward? I want to listen to the bottom end...is it sloppy like the Sanus Fabers? Or does it have great control but sometimes over powering like I think Dynaudio's are? I want to listen to the high frequencies...will they make my ears bleed after hours of listenig like the BMW CM series? IF all the individual parts are doing what I want them to do, them I sit down and enjoy my friend. Just like I have analyzed critcally the Stello DAC 100 Signature and the Stello CDT 100 Transport and the Musical Fidelity XRAY/Stello DAC 100 Signature together....now I can sit back in my easy chair/sweet spot and enjoy.

Thank for the conversation Ajani.

Ajani
12-07-2010, 03:50 PM
lol your to funny Ajani.




Ah...IF you read the posting again youd understand that I said good gear...nothing good about an iPOD...I have a portable music player and really cant sit down in my sweet spot with a nice beverage after a hard days work and enjoy the music the way I want to Ajani. Whats the point spending hundred and thosands of dollars on good gear if you dont listen to what it can do? Being an audio hobbyist is more than just listening critically and looking at written stats. No sir...You see, we look at written stats and then listen critically first to see if it meets our expectations...if so, then we enjoy.

A football team has to play as a team to get good results....oh yes they have their individual parts but they must play as a team. Same with music most of the time, unless you are listing to a solo. When I listen critically, I want to hear the mid range. Is it recessed or to forward? I want to listen to the bottom end...is it sloppy like the Sanus Fabers? Or does it have great control but sometimes over powering like I think Dynaudio's are? I want to listen to the high frequencies...will they make my ears bleed after hours of listenig like the BMW CM series? IF all the individual parts are doing what I want them to do, them I sit down and enjoy my friend. Just like I have analyzed critcally the Stello DAC 100 Signature and the Stello CDT 100 Transport and the Musical Fidelity XRAY/Stello DAC 100 Signature together....now I can sit back in my easy chair/sweet spot and enjoy.

Thank for the conversation Ajani.

I'd love to hear your setup... I had the same experiences with both Dynaudio and the B&W CM line...

For some persons (audiophiles) a certain amount of money has to be spent before they can just sit down and enjoy the music... However, other persons can just enjoy it straight from a stock iPod.... The driving factor in audiophilia is dissatisfaction with the sound quality (or obsession with electronics)... Once you reach that state of satisfaction then you can just enjoy the music and stop thinking about the next upgrade...

Feanor
12-07-2010, 05:13 PM
This one time in band camp.....

No seriously though - this one show I was at, I was sick and not really feeling well and it was this god awful boring Brazilian soft folk singing absolute crap (IMHO) (was there for a girl - it was hot while it lasted - anyways) the snare drum was so sharp and pricing it felt like it was being played six inches from my face. It was a truly awful experience. And to that point I don't like a system that replicated this amount of live. I'm very sorry, but I don't often goto live/acoustic or not/ shows because the sound is so awful. I like a system at home, where I can take a poorly recorded (sharp in this case) record and listen to it. Sometimes the music is awesome and the recording engineer is deaf.

I give props to a system that can reflect the annoying and awfulness of a live event, but the reason why I have a great system at home is so that I can enjoy the music.

Anyways - just my two cents.
If you choose to "improve" the poorer albums, you don't hear the better albums at their best. My choice is to hear the best albums at their best and let poorer albums be revealed for what they are.

frenchmon
12-07-2010, 05:16 PM
I'd love to hear your setup... I had the same experiences with both Dynaudio and the B&W CM line...

For some persons (audiophiles) a certain amount of money has to be spent before they can just sit down and enjoy the music... However, other persons can just enjoy it straight from a stock iPod.... The driving factor in audiophilia is dissatisfaction with the sound quality (or obsession with electronics)... Once you reach that state of satisfaction then you can just enjoy the music and stop thinking about the next upgrade...

Thank you Ajani...the Stello Outfit was a loner from a good audio friend who gave me the privilege of listening to his fine gear...he also sent me his Rega integated amp and his Blue Marble speaker wire and BM interconnects. This set up is outstanding...so I have been having all kinds of fun matching his gear with my gear...breaking it all down and putting other combinations of mine and his gear together....oh yeah...listening critically for spells and then enjoying even for longer spells.....I love this hobby.

Worf101
12-08-2010, 04:34 AM
My problem is this. I'm old enough to have been around when "Hi Fi" challenged mono. I was also in the park when stereo supplanted both. But musical fidelity wasn't even a concept to us as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm. I know/knew analog was imperfect when we played certain .45's so long the grooves literally seemed to disappear but it was all we had till Cassettes and 8 tracks came along. They lasted what seemed a hot minute, well mebbe longer in terms of Cassettes, before being cast aside in favor of a new, all digital media, the CD.

I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days" of analog because for me, there were no good ole days, just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr. I've never heard a world class analog set up. Perhaps one day I will, but until I do the question is moot. I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

Worf

Luvin Da Blues
12-08-2010, 04:40 AM
I think I see the problem with your attempts at vinyl playback.


.......... as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm...............just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr.

Worf

:biggrin5:

Ajani
12-08-2010, 05:02 AM
My problem is this. I'm old enough to have been around when "Hi Fi" challenged mono. I was also in the park when stereo supplanted both. But musical fidelity wasn't even a concept to us as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm. I know/knew analog was imperfect when we played certain .45's so long the grooves literally seemed to disappear but it was all we had till Cassettes and 8 tracks came along. They lasted what seemed a hot minute, well mebbe longer in terms of Cassettes, before being cast aside in favor of a new, all digital media, the CD.

I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days" of analog because for me, there were no good ole days, just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr. I've never heard a world class analog set up. Perhaps one day I will, but until I do the question is moot. I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

Worf

Those are good points... Often when audiophiles talk about the 'superior' sound of analog and tubes they are referring to state of the art/ultra expensive gear... Then they claim the mass market is deaf for preferring digital and SS... Yet they neglect that in the price ranges the mass market shop, Digital and SS sound far superior to the analog and tube alternatives of the day... an iPod sounds far superior to the Sony Walkman I had as a child...

kexodusc
12-08-2010, 05:34 AM
I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

Worf
(spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

Someone get me some napkins.

atomicAdam
12-08-2010, 08:13 AM
If you choose to "improve" the poorer albums, you don't hear the better albums at their best. My choice is to hear the best albums at their best and let poorer albums be revealed for what they are.

Feanor -

I agree with you - but there is a fine line at times - what I actually prefer is having enough equipment to compensate for a poor recording.

Really the only sounds that drive me nuts in poor recordings are highs. Some amps ride that border line of reproducing those sharp highs, like live sound, very well, when they are in the recording. And if they pop up and go away as a horn flares or a drummer really has at it, that is fine, I appreciate that. But if they whole recording crosses that border than it is too much. Thankfully most recordings don't, but is nice to be able to change some gear around when it does.

For instance, Right now I have the PrimaLuna Prologue Premium in and the Melody MK88. Both tube amps, similar price, different tube sets and different sounds. One of them, on poor recordings, is just too much, I can't listen to it. The other on poor recordings softens out those shrieking highs and turns albums like The Thermals - Blood Body Machine - into something I can listen too. Or tames the vocals on a Afro-beat mix vinyl I have. I like being able to listen to music I buy, instead of saying, damn, I wish I could listen to that $40 I just spent, but I can't. So there is a fine line between comfort and reality. The reason why most people live in their own little bubble, myself included, is that reality isn't also perfect or enjoyable. And since the audiophile technophoria that seeks perfection is, as i see it, a never ending road called burning money, I choose to look for a system that plays the well recorded albums very well, captivatingly well, and controls a bit of the poor recorded ones.

Look, if you get all hot and bothered over the latest in hi-fi technology, than sure enough, go after that. Spend your money, because the technology is what gets you off, not the music. Where as for me, I love the music, and I want to hear it on a really good system, a great system, and system that makes me blow my mind every time I hear it, but that doesn't have to mean it is a system that perfectly mirrors reality.

Though, that doesn't mean I can't give systems like that props. There is something absolutely enjoyable when the reality is in cohesion with my ears. But if I was to spend money, I'd want something that I can always enjoy.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-08-2010, 08:14 AM
(spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

Someone get me some napkins.

Here Kex,(hands over the napkins). I am mad as hell at worf, he just made me so hungry with the bacon comment. I love bacon.....damn I want some.....I HATE YOU WORF!

GMichael
12-08-2010, 09:04 AM
(spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

Someone get me some napkins.
What a mess.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-08-2010, 10:24 AM
The problem, IMHO, is greatly exacerbated by recording practice. It is common practice to record acoustic performance with numerous microphones placed very close to the performers. How easy, then, is it for this practice to deliver the 5th row center, audience perspective? The answer is not very, and some producers & sound engineers are a lot more successful than others. The close-up sound is generally more strident than one hears in the typical orchestra section seat where multiple reflect sounds with different volumes and time delays merge together to soften the sound.

Feanor, I would like to add that not every close miked recording sounds strident, and it is not always advisable(or even possible) to do a 5th row recording. A 5th row perspective in a concert hall is just one perspective.

Sometimes the best venues for recording are not available, and you have to make a second choice. That second choice may have all kinds of acoustical problems, but it available with a reasonable cost. The acoustics of the room may be too expensive to alter with temporary treatments, so the room acoustical signature must be avoided altogether. You close mike in this case so you can control what goes on the drive or tape. Keeping the room in the equation when it sound is lacking, just means a ton of adjustments in post. I personally prefer to record up close, than to have to make a ton of adjustments in post production. Sometimes the venue reverberation time is too long, and putting microphones in the 5th row would muddy the recording. I can name(and have been in) a ton of situations that require close mike recording to avoid the acoustics of the hall itself.

The problem with close miking used in the past was the sample rate used. Acoustical musical instruments require interaction with the air to achieve proper tonal and timbre qualities. This is why recordings sound better when the microphones are high overhead, or placed out in the first few rows in the concert hall. Close miking, and a relatively low sample rate prevents the instruments output from mixing with the air efficiently. Hence the harshness you can hear from the arrangement. 44.1khz is too low a sample rate to close mike a recording. The system does not allow much air mixing before filters kick in to prevent anti aliasing. Once you raise the system's sample rate to 96khz, the system itself allows enough air to mix with the instruments to get the proper tonal and timbre qualities that make them sound natural. The higher up you go, the more air that is introduced to the system, the more natural the recording will sound.

Just like there are compromises in designing and manufacturing audio equipment, there are also compromises that have to be made on the recording end as well. Just like with equipment, you have to balance those compromises in order to create a great final product.

Feanor
12-08-2010, 12:13 PM
Thanks for these insights, Sir T.

For sure they help us understand the pitfalls of recording. Of course many producers and engineers are able to overcome practical difficulties and capture truly execellent sound.

Do you suppose a low sample rate was much of the problem with recordings of say, the '90s? And, I suppose, the reason so many pundits insisted on the superiority of 15 ips analog tape. In any case I'm sure low sample rates are a problem of the past, not the present.

It's still my opinion today -- as I did even before the advent of CD -- that most "harsh" sound is not the fault of playback equipment but of the recording. And it's not always just the recording process; it can be the actuality of the live music. Live music can sound strident.

Feanor
12-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Feanor -

I agree with you - but there is a fine line at times - what I actually prefer is having enough equipment to compensate for a poor recording.

Really the only sounds that drive me nuts in poor recordings are highs. Some amps ride that border line of reproducing those sharp highs, like live sound, very well, when they are in the recording. And if they pop up and go away as a horn flares or a drummer really has at it, that is fine, I appreciate that. But if they whole recording crosses that border than it is too much. Thankfully most recordings don't, but is nice to be able to change some gear around when it does.
....
That is why tone controls were invented -- as we used to say before they went out of fashion.

Anyway, thank goodness we can still say, Chacun à son goût.

pixelthis
12-08-2010, 02:31 PM
I'm curious what high end analog sourced systems you've heard. Could you please give me some examples of system in the $100,000k+ level you've heard? Either tape sourced or turntable sourced.

As soon as you post all of the double blind tests where you could tell the difference
between one of those systems and a receiver with decent speakers.
They did one of these tests a few ago, and threw in a 400 dollar plastic PIONEER
receiver with a bunch of megabuck amps. THE Pioneer was picked by several
so called "audiophiles".:1:

pixelthis
12-08-2010, 02:47 PM
Those are good points... Often when audiophiles talk about the 'superior' sound of analog and tubes they are referring to state of the art/ultra expensive gear... Then they claim the mass market is deaf for preferring digital and SS... Yet they neglect that in the price ranges the mass market shop, Digital and SS sound far superior to the analog and tube alternatives of the day... an iPod sounds far superior to the Sony Walkman I had as a child...

What AM I going to do with you? Send you back to audiophile 101, I GUESS.
Thanks to a little thing called diminishing returns the difference between a 10,000
system and a 100,000 system is less than you might think.
It takes a few grand to go from HTIB to a decent system with 95% of all of the performance
you will ever get, and about another 100,000$ to get a few more percent. You never will
get perfection, just chipping away a few fractions of a percent at higher and higher cost.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN mass market and a system that cost the annual
budget of Norway, not that much.
and this applies to everything, my 13 year old car can do around 140 if I WANT TO RISK MY LIFE, a shiny new Corvette can clear 200 MPH, a difference of 60 MPH, AND THE DIFFERENCE in 0 to 60 is around four seconds.
THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE is fifty grand.:1:

Ajani
12-08-2010, 04:10 PM
What AM I going to do with you? Send you back to audiophile 101, I GUESS.
Thanks to a little thing called diminishing returns the difference between a 10,000
system and a 100,000 system is less than you might think.
It takes a few grand to go from HTIB to a decent system with 95% of all of the performance
you will ever get, and about another 100,000$ to get a few more percent. You never will
get perfection, just chipping away a few fractions of a percent at higher and higher cost.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN mass market and a system that cost the annual
budget of Norway, not that much.
and this applies to everything, my 13 year old car can do around 140 if I WANT TO RISK MY LIFE, a shiny new Corvette can clear 200 MPH, a difference of 60 MPH, AND THE DIFFERENCE in 0 to 60 is around four seconds.
THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE is fifty grand.:1:

Thanks for providing the segue for a contentious point I've been thinking of bringing into this thread: Diminishing Returns

My opinion on Diminishing Returns has changed a lot in the last 5 years... I remember JM and I agreeing in a thread I started on the topic back then, that diminishing returns for a CD player starts at about $300 with the Marantz CD5001... Flash forward 5 years and both JM and I own $1K digital sources....

I think there is no fixed point of diminishing returns... And here is where my view gets really contentious; I actually think it has less to do with sound quality and more to do with disposable income...

In other words, the more disposable income you can allocate to this hobby, the higher the price point you declare that 'diminishing returns' kicks in...

NOTE: I am not talking about Income... as many persons make the ridiculous assumption that someone is poor because they own a humble Rotel, NAD or Emotiva amp... I am talking about the money you are able to spend on this hobby after dealing with all your financial commitments (paying off the mortgage on the house or mansion, yacht, BMW, kid's college, etc) and all your other expensive hobbies (wine tasting, fine dining, luxury watches) and also what your spouse will allow you to spend or else she'll divorce you....

I think it's why a lot of audiophiles are suddenly able to 'enjoy the music' when they've spent like $30K on a setup... They know they can't justify the expense required to reach the next level to a spouse or are unwilling to sell the BMW or give up their other hobbies, so they realize that they've found audio nirvana at that price point... Yet check on them 5 years later, when they've accumulated some more cheddar and suddenly it's time to upgrade some part of their perfect setup...

Worf101
12-09-2010, 06:25 AM
(spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

Someone get me some napkins.
Sorry muh man didn't mean to cause spewage, jest makin' a point. Thanks for the love though. But lets be honest, that's what most .45's sounded like after about 10 or so trips through the ringer.

Errr. Sir TT. I gave up pork for about 10 years after getting sick once in the Army from a booby trapped pork chop (no lie). I could resist all manner of porkage but bacon always gave me trouble.... it just smells so..... damn..... good.... (slobber, smeck, drool). When I finally caved and started swallowing swine again you can guess what I started with... A heaping pile of salty, crispy, sizzlin' and scrumptious bacon.

Sorry for the thread jack. Man ah'm hongry.

Worf

GMichael
12-09-2010, 06:48 AM
A heaping pile of salty, crispy, sizzlin' and scrumptious bacon.

Sorry for the thread jack. Man ah'm hongry.

Worf

Awwww man! Some of us are on a diet you know.:(

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Thanks for these insights, Sir T.

No problem. When I started doing live and film score recording back in the late 80's, I found that there were so many issues that could crop up that you had to be flexible to deal with. Poor acoustics in a recording venue was one of them.


For sure they help us understand the pitfalls of recording. Of course many producers and engineers are able to overcome practical difficulties and capture truly execellent sound.

Ingenuity can take you a long way in this business.


Do you suppose a low sample rate was much of the problem with recordings of say, the '90s? And, I suppose, the reason so many pundits insisted on the superiority of 15 ips analog tape. In any case I'm sure low sample rates are a problem of the past, not the present.

It was several issues, both in the recording and playback chains. First, it was the sample rate and close miking. On the playback side it was brick wall filters and the associated ringing ALONG with the sample rate and close miking. We also had jitter issues in the studio as the digital audio passed through different digital processors. That also showed up during replication of the discs as well. The playback side improved with oversampling(which eliminated brick wall filters), but we were still stuck with the Redbook standard, which I believe was still inadequate at the time. As re-clocking, oversampling at the recording side, and improved DAC and digital interfaces on the playback side, the sound of digital improved dramatically, but still not enough to my taste. On the film side of my career, everything sounded better because we were still using high quality analog tape and high quality analog equipment. Once we kicked it up to 24/96khz, that is when I have seen a monumental shift in the quality of digital sound. Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.


It's still my opinion today -- as I did even before the advent of CD -- that most "harsh" sound is not the fault of playback equipment but of the recording. And it's not always just the recording process; it can be the actuality of the live music. Live music can sound strident.

I can agree with this. Part of the reason some of the older recordings sounded so good, is because conductors balanced their orchestra's even before the first microphone was positioned. There was no over blowing or bowing of the acoustical instruments, and therefore no chance of harshness or stridency coming from them. When we set up microphones, it was not to achieve a proper balance(that was already done) but to get the best capture of the tonal and timbres of the instruments. At some point, we recording guys got it in our heads that the "you can fix that in post" was more important than "fix that before we record". Now we are back to fix it before we record, because the resolution of todays formats do not allow for fixing much of anything in post, and neither do the budgets we get.

Feanor
12-09-2010, 10:31 AM
...
.... Once we kicked it up to 24/96khz, that is when I have seen a monumental shift in the quality of digital sound. Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.
...
... Part of the reason some of the older recordings sounded so good, is because conductors balanced their orchestra's even before the first microphone was positioned. There was no over blowing or bowing of the acoustical instruments, and therefore no chance of harshness or stridency coming from them. When we set up microphones, it was not to achieve a proper balance(that was already done) but to get the best capture of the tonal and timbres of the instruments. At some point, we recording guys got it in our heads that the "you can fix that in post" was more important than "fix that before we record". Now we are back to fix it before we record, because the resolution of todays formats do not allow for fixing much of anything in post, and neither do the budgets we get.
This is all good news. I don't buy a huge number of recordings, mostly on account ot financial constraints. However it is my impression that recent recordings are more consistently excellent to superb than ever before.

As for older recordings, there is a lot of attrocious stuff out there. And the better older recordings,e.g.g, Mercury Living Presences or RCA Living Stereo, the results were above average for their time, but by no means as good as the best recent recordings. (And I'm not even talking about multi-channel.)

Ajani
12-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Why can't we get that kind of resolution on iTunes and Amazon??? I can't wait for the day when that level of quality is easily accessible...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 11:15 AM
Now that's what I'm talking about! Why can't we get that kind of resolution on iTunes and Amazon??? I can't wait for the day when that level of quality is easily accessible...

The problem with getting that from either retail downloading site is bandwidth and storage. You need the bandwidth so you can quickly download the huge file before the entire system times out. Storage would be a huge problem, as you would have to cut 3/4 of your low rez stuff just to store a quarter of this high resolution stuff. The economical feasibility of that does not work out for either the consumer, or the retailer.

GMichael
12-09-2010, 11:23 AM
The problem with getting that from either retail downloading site is bandwidth and storage. You need the bandwidth so you can quickly download the huge file before the entire system times out. Storage would be a huge problem, as you would have to cut 3/4 of your low rez stuff just to store a quarter of this high resolution stuff. The economical feasibility of that does not work out for either the consumer, or the retailer.

Yet...

Someday it will get here. With affordable drives already topping 3 TB and memory prices dropping, it's all just a matter of time. Come on progress!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 11:38 AM
Yet...

Someday it will get here. With affordable drives already topping 3 TB and memory prices dropping, it's all just a matter of time. Come on progress!

Its got a long way to go though. You have talked about advances on one side of the wall, but bandwidth and storage on the other side of the wall has light years to go. First, DXD files are huge, even when downcoverted to 24/192khz. That means less songs per server, which makes storing them FAR more expensive than the typical itunes song. Hence higher prices, of which the public has shown little tolerance for with digital files.

In order for high resolution audio to be downloaded as quickly as a typical Itunes song, you are going to need internet speeds far in excess to what we currently have. The internet speeds in our country are going down, not up, and that does not point to a pipeline big enough to make these files sizes economically feasible to support. If you start to see dust ups like the Comcast versus Level 3 happening, then it will take much longer for us to get there.

On the consumer side, yes drive sizes have increased and prices have dropped in terms of storage, and processing power has increased. But we have huge hurdles before we even get to this point.

GMichael
12-09-2010, 11:46 AM
Its got a long way to go though. You have talked about advances on one side of the wall, but bandwidth and storage on the other side of the wall has light years to go. First, DXD files are huge, even when downcoverted to 24/192khz. That means less songs per server, which makes storing them FAR more expensive than the typical itunes song. Hence higher prices, of which the public has shown little tolerance for with digital files.

In order for high resolution audio to be downloaded as quickly as a typical Itunes song, you are going to need internet speeds far in excess to what we currently have. The internet speeds in our country are going down, not up, and that does not point to a pipeline big enough to make these files sizes economically feasible to support. If you start to see dust ups like the Comcast versus Level 3 happening, then it will take much longer for us to get there.

On the consumer side, yes drive sizes have increased and prices have dropped in terms of storage, and processing power has increased. But we have huge hurdles before we even get to this point.

I agree about the bandwidth. It will be awhile before downloads can hit that quality. How about disk formats? Can a BR support those numbers? If not, how close can it get us? Then download from the disk onto a home based server.

pixelthis
12-09-2010, 11:46 AM
Awwww man! Some of us are on a diet you know.:(

I heard about your "diet"...something dies YOU EAT IT(die-eat, get it?).
Ahhem.:1:

GMichael
12-09-2010, 11:47 AM
I heard about your "diet"...something dies YOU EAT IT(die-eat, get it?).
Ahhem.:1:
Sounds like The Roadkill Cafe. You kill it, we grill it.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 11:50 AM
I agree about the bandwidth. It will be awhile before downloads can hit that quality. How about disk formats? Can a BR support those numbers? If not, how close can it get us? Then download from the disk onto a home based server.

BR discs get you the 24/192khz over 5 channels. I cannot remember where I read it, but one reviewer compared a download of a concert, to the Bluray disc of the same concert. Same bit rate(24bit), and same sample rate(192khz). He clearly stated the BR disc sounded better than the download. I suspect that his DAC's(Wolfson coming out of his Pioneer) and the Sharc(from his streaming media player) are not of the same quality.

You can rip a Bluray disc to a server, but that server would have to be BD+, BD watermark, and HDCP compliant, are you are not going to have much success at playing it back.

atomicAdam
12-09-2010, 11:58 AM
As soon as you post all of the double blind tests where you could tell the difference
between one of those systems and a receiver with decent speakers.
They did one of these tests a few ago, and threw in a 400 dollar plastic PIONEER
receiver with a bunch of megabuck amps. THE Pioneer was picked by several
so called "audiophiles".:1:


So what you are telling me is that you haven't bothered to listen to any high end analog set ups and your opinion about analog and CD is based on a lack of experience and data.

This really calls into question any opinion you might have on anything since you are willing to form an opinion on something you have never heard.

I would appreciated if from here on you choose your words wisely when commenting on the forum. We don't need opinions from you on subjects you are ill informed on.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 12:11 PM
So what you are telling me is that you haven't bothered to listen to any high end analog set ups and your opinion about analog and CD is based on a lack of experience and data.

As is his opinion on 3D, performance related video devices, and a myriad of other things we talk about here. Always the anecdotal or completely uniformed opinion, or something so outdated and behind the times, that it is no longer applicable.


This really calls into question any opinion you might have on anything since you are willing to form an opinion on something you have never heard.

You can add or "seen" as well.


I would appreciated if you from here on you choose your words wisely when commenting on the forum. We don't need opinions from you on subjects you are ill informed on.

I have asked him to do the same about 3D in the past. Good luck on this one, Pixel seems to want to do his own thing, even if it is completely unhelpful to the site overall.

GMichael
12-09-2010, 01:33 PM
BR discs get you the 24/192khz over 5 channels. I cannot remember where I read it, but one reviewer compared a download of a concert, to the Bluray disc of the same concert. Same bit rate(24bit), and same sample rate(192khz). He clearly stated the BR disc sounded better than the download. I suspect that his DAC's(Wolfson coming out of his Pioneer) and the Sharc(from his streaming media player) are not of the same quality.

You can rip a Bluray disc to a server, but that server would have to be BD+, BD watermark, and HDCP compliant, are you are not going to have much success at playing it back.

Although it’s not 32bit 352.8khz sample rate, BR sure seems like it’s pretty good at 24/192khz over 5 channels. Could that be increased for people only interested in 2 channel, or is 24/192 the speed limit?

Are there BR servers available yet? In the works? At least though of? The masses like convenient. Me2.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 03:44 PM
Although it’s not 32bit 352.8khz sample rate, BR sure seems like it’s pretty good at 24/192khz over 5 channels. Could that be increased for people only interested in 2 channel, or is 24/192 the speed limit?

24/192khz is the speed limit, and for a good reason. Beyond that, the ear hears no improvement. Let's face it, the sonic difference between 24/96khz and 24/192khz is identifiable upon very close scrutiny, but very slight at best. At 24bit depth, you already have far more dynamic range than any analog recording and playback device. At 192 thousand samples a second you are already mimicking analog's continuous capture capabilities, supposedly analog's trump card on digital.

DXD is really a recording format, not a playback format(even though I can play it back in its native form on my system). 32/352.8khz is really beyond what is needed on any consumer format. It was designed to give plenty of bit overhead for post production purposes, so we could record the audio at 24/176 or 24/192khz, and still have enough bits for equalization, level changes, and editing in post production. So if you record at 32/352.8, edit, equalize and level at the same bit and sample rate, when you downconvert the results to 24/192khz, it is perceptively lossless to the ears. Everything is done beyond the capabilities of the human ear, unlike anything in audio we have heard before it. Everything from microphones, mixing desks and DAW's, and editing software operates at resolutions beyond what we can hear, and that is the beauty of DXD, and 24/192khz audio. Any damage done to the recording from downconverting from 32 to 24bits, would still be beyond the resolving capabilities of our ears(and equipment). We have never had that auditory advantage in audio production(and reproduction) in its history.


Are there BR servers available yet? In the works? At least though of? The masses like convenient. Me2.

Yes there are. But they are all priced in the stratosphere, which is why they are not really being talked about anywhere. The masses cannot afford this kind of convenience unfortunately.

Ajani
12-09-2010, 04:02 PM
24/192khz is the speed limit, and for a good reason. Beyond that, the ear hears no improvement. Let's face it, the sonic difference between 24/96khz and 24/192khz is identifiable upon very close scrutiny, but very slight at best. At 24bit depth, you already have far more dynamic range than any analog recording and playback device. At 192 thousand samples a second you are already mimicking analog's continuous capture capabilities, supposedly analog's trump card on digital.

DXD is really a recording format, not a playback format(even though I can play it back in its native form on my system). 32/352.8khz is really beyond what any what is needed on any consumer format. It was designed to give plenty of bit overhead for post production purposes, so we could record the audio at 24/176 or 24/192khz, and still have enough bits for equalization, level changes, and editing in post production. So if you record at 32/352.8, edit, equalize and level at the same bit and sample rate, when you downconvert the results to 24/192khz, it is perceptively lossless to the ears. Everything is done beyond the capabilities of the human ear, unlike anything in audio we have heard before it. Everything from microphones, mixing desks and DAW's, and editing software operates at resolutions beyond what we can hear, and that is the beauty of DXD, and 24/192khz audio. Any damage done to the recording from downconverting from 32 to 24bits, would still be beyond the resolving capabilities of our ears(and equipment). We have never had that auditory advantage in audio production(and reproduction) in its history.



Yes there are. But they are all priced in the stratosphere, which is why they are not really being talked about anywhere. The masses cannot afford this kind of convenience unfortunately.

That's good to know that I won't be missing anything at 24/192, since that is the current capability of both my DACs....

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-09-2010, 04:10 PM
That's good to know that I won't be missing anything at 24/192, since that is the current capability of both my DACs....

That takes care of the DAC's, but you still have upstream and downstream of the audio chain to worry about. Is the processing at 24/192khz, or just the conversion? Is my signal path(both upstream and downstream) quiet enough to take advantage of the lower noise levels of the recording? Can my amps pass anything above 20khz, or does it become unstable when trying? Can the speakers reproduce signals above 20khz? Is my room quiet enough to resolve the smallest details of a 24bit recording?

These are all areas that must be addressed before one can really talk about having 24/192khz performance capabilities with their systems.

Ajani
12-09-2010, 04:49 PM
That takes care of the DAC's, but you still have upstream and downstream of the audio chain to worry about. Is the processing at 24/192khz, or just the conversion? Is my signal path(both upstream and downstream) quiet enough to take advantage of the lower noise levels of the recording? Can my amps pass anything above 20khz, or does it become unstable when trying? Can the speakers reproduce signals above 20khz? Is my room quiet enough to resolve the smallest details of a 24bit recording?

These are all areas that must be addressed before one can really talk about having 24/192khz performance capabilities with their systems.

All good points but I'm only referring to the DACs... Processing and not just conversion... Anyway it will be awhile before enough music I like will be available in 24/192, giving me more than enough time to address the rest of the system...

GMichael
12-10-2010, 06:34 AM
24/192khz is the speed limit, and for a good reason. Beyond that, the ear hears no improvement. Let's face it, the sonic difference between 24/96khz and 24/192khz is identifiable upon very close scrutiny, but very slight at best. At 24bit depth, you already have far more dynamic range than any analog recording and playback device. At 192 thousand samples a second you are already mimicking analog's continuous capture capabilities, supposedly analog's trump card on digital.

DXD is really a recording format, not a playback format(even though I can play it back in its native form on my system). 32/352.8khz is really beyond what is needed on any consumer format. It was designed to give plenty of bit overhead for post production purposes, so we could record the audio at 24/176 or 24/192khz, and still have enough bits for equalization, level changes, and editing in post production. So if you record at 32/352.8, edit, equalize and level at the same bit and sample rate, when you downconvert the results to 24/192khz, it is perceptively lossless to the ears. Everything is done beyond the capabilities of the human ear, unlike anything in audio we have heard before it. Everything from microphones, mixing desks and DAW's, and editing software operates at resolutions beyond what we can hear, and that is the beauty of DXD, and 24/192khz audio. Any damage done to the recording from downconverting from 32 to 24bits, would still be beyond the resolving capabilities of our ears(and equipment). We have never had that auditory advantage in audio production(and reproduction) in its history.

All great news. Not only have we reached this point, but it’s also available to consumers. Now we just need the masses to embrace it. Thanks!



Yes there are. But they are all priced in the stratosphere, which is why they are not really being talked about anywhere. The masses cannot afford this kind of convenience unfortunately.

Yet? I hope you just left the “yet” off at the end by mistake. If it doesn’t become affordable, then the masses will never embrace it. They like to have their 30,000 songs at their fingertips.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-10-2010, 09:51 AM
All great news. Not only have we reached this point, but it’s also available to consumers. Now we just need the masses to embrace it. Thanks!

Yeah G, so go out and get that classical music BR TODAY!!!





Yet? I hope you just left the “yet” off at the end by mistake. If it doesn’t become affordable, then the masses will never embrace it. They like to have their 30,000 songs at their fingertips.

Nope, I left it off on purpose. Every BR server I have seen is expensive, and each model they have released after the first has gotten more expensive each time. These guys are not even trying to create a BR server that the masses can afford, which is why it is not being talked about anywhere.

GMichael
12-10-2010, 09:55 AM
Yeah G, so go out and get that classical music BR TODAY!!!






Nope, I left it off on purpose. Every BR server I have seen is expensive, and each model they have released after the first has gotten more expensive each time. These guys are not even trying to create a BR server that the masses can afford, which is why it is not being talked about anywhere.
That sucks hairy wrinkled ones.:cryin:

pixelthis
12-10-2010, 02:31 PM
So what you are telling me is that you haven't bothered to listen to any high end analog set ups and your opinion about analog and CD is based on a lack of experience and data.

This really calls into question any opinion you might have on anything since you are willing to form an opinion on something you have never heard.

I would appreciated if from here on you choose your words wisely when commenting on the forum. We don't need opinions from you on subjects you are ill informed on.

IT HAS BEEN A FEW YEARS, for one thing I was out of this "hobby" for awhile.
And "lack" of experience and "data". What have you been smoking? I lived in a non
digital world for about 25 years, I stood in a local department store when the first players
were uncrated and displayed. And my mouth dropped when I first heard a CD player.
This was the great devide, the day the world changed.
My "opinion" is the same as everybody else in the world, save a few so called "audiophiles" who are doing their best to undo the digital revolution.
THEY ARENT HAVING MUCH SUCCESS.
A friend showed me his IPHONE the other night, I plugged it into my 400 dollar YAMAHA
desktop audio system, and it sounded pretty good.
My "opinion" about analog and CD? Well, ones dead and the others dying.
I constantly hear so called "audiophiles" expound on why a 1934 SET tube antique
is "better" than a modern solid state amp, well, heres a clue, ace.
NOBODY CARES. They are too busy downloading cheap MP3 garbage off the net,
and playing it on their Drea phones.
The battle is not between analog and digital, that battle has been lost a long time ago,
the battle is to increase bit rates, use of lossless codecs, to educate young people
about what decently offered music sounds like.
But the audiophile sector is not doing that, they are trying to undo the digital revolution,
trying to convince peeps who know better that their scratchy old records are better than
pristine digital recordings, failing to notice that few are paying attention.
And we are going to lose a generation who are too busy Dwnloading cheap low bit
music to their MP3 players, cell phones, and laptops.
YOU WANT to educate them about "quality" sound? Well, how can you when your
version of "quality" is a turntable playing a scratchy vinyl record through a SET
AMP from the 1939 worlds fair?
Oh, and for the "record" I HAVE HAD THREE YEARS of electronics training, have been
into audio since about the age of twelve, and turned 54 Sunday.
Yamaha, Adcom, Panasonic, Sony, HARMON, Technics, these are just a few of the CD players I have owned(I HAVE OWNED DOZENS).
I had a YAMAHA "stereo receiver with GENESIS speakers and a Pioneer "snakearm"
turntable , and later a NAD deck, before a lot on this board were born.
I HAVE RECORDS from the early 1970's that I BOUGHT,
You think I don't know that much about this stuff when you are operating from the flawed
premise that a 100,000 dollar system is a great deal different from a 10,000
system, when the difference is actually slight, the extra cash going to gain a few tenths
of a few percent over the cheaper system.
And you don't even understand what I am saying, that a slight improvement is what you're paying for. And heres' another shocker, ace, if that 100,000 "system is comprised
of a tube amp and one of those ridiculous 5,000 record players, it will probably sound
worse than the 10,000 system if that system has modern electronics and a decent CD player. This is what your precious "specs" say anyway.
But haven't you heard? "audiophiles" don't care about "specs", they care about what they
"imagine" they are hearing in their little irrelevant world.:1:

Ajani
12-10-2010, 03:22 PM
I constantly hear so called "audiophiles" expound on why a 1934 SET tube antique
is "better" than a modern solid state amp, well, heres a clue, ace.
NOBODY CARES. They are too busy downloading cheap MP3 garbage off the net,
and playing it on their Drea phones.
The battle is not between analog and digital, that battle has been lost a long time ago,
the battle is to increase bit rates, use of lossless codecs, to educate young people
about what decently offered music sounds like.
But the audiophile sector is not doing that, they are trying to undo the digital revolution,
trying to convince peeps who know better that their scratchy old records are better than
pristine digital recordings, failing to notice that few are paying attention.
And we are going to lose a generation who are too busy Dwnloading cheap low bit
music to their MP3 players, cell phones, and laptops.
YOU WANT to educate them about "quality" sound? Well, how can you when your
version of "quality" is a turntable playing a scratchy vinyl record through a SET
AMP from the 1939 worlds fair?

Wow... I actually really agree with Pix here... Even though I have no issue with someone preferring the sound of analog and tubes... I do feel that it is a joke to attempt to convert younger generations to "high quality" sound by talking about turntables and tubes...

Analog is dead for all but the enthusiasts... so the approach should be to show the iPod gen (technically my generation or maybe I'm the gen just before them) that higher resolution/higher quality digital systems are available...

Sadly, audiophiles are so divided that we are more often objects of ridicule rather than educators about sound... Instead of pushing High resolution downloads we splinter off supporting turntables, reel to reel, CDs, SACDs and now BluRay Audio... Here's a hint: unlike movies where a physical disc is still practical (to a degree), the masses don't need or want a new disc based format for music... That would be counter to the way most persons listen to music (iPods, phones, laptops) and hence a joke...

atomicAdam
12-10-2010, 03:47 PM
IT HAS BEEN A FEW YEARS, for one thing I was out of this "hobby" for awhile.
And "lack" of experience and "data". What have you been smoking? I lived in a non
digital world for about 25 years, I stood in a local department store when the first players
were uncrated and displayed. And my mouth dropped when I first heard a CD player.
This was the great devide, the day the world changed.
My "opinion" is the same as everybody else in the world, save a few so called "audiophiles" who are doing their best to undo the digital revolution.
THEY ARENT HAVING MUCH SUCCESS.
A friend showed me his IPHONE the other night, I plugged it into my 400 dollar YAMAHA
desktop audio system, and it sounded pretty good.
My "opinion" about analog and CD? Well, ones dead and the others dying.
I constantly hear so called "audiophiles" expound on why a 1934 SET tube antique
is "better" than a modern solid state amp, well, heres a clue, ace.
NOBODY CARES. They are too busy downloading cheap MP3 garbage off the net,
and playing it on their Drea phones.
The battle is not between analog and digital, that battle has been lost a long time ago,
the battle is to increase bit rates, use of lossless codecs, to educate young people
about what decently offered music sounds like.
But the audiophile sector is not doing that, they are trying to undo the digital revolution,
trying to convince peeps who know better that their scratchy old records are better than
pristine digital recordings, failing to notice that few are paying attention.
And we are going to lose a generation who are too busy Dwnloading cheap low bit
music to their MP3 players, cell phones, and laptops.
YOU WANT to educate them about "quality" sound? Well, how can you when your
version of "quality" is a turntable playing a scratchy vinyl record through a SET
AMP from the 1939 worlds fair?
Oh, and for the "record" I HAVE HAD THREE YEARS of electronics training, have been
into audio since about the age of twelve, and turned 54 Sunday.
Yamaha, Adcom, Panasonic, Sony, HARMON, Technics, these are just a few of the CD players I have owned(I HAVE OWNED DOZENS).
I had a YAMAHA "stereo receiver with GENESIS speakers and a Pioneer "snakearm"
turntable , and later a NAD deck, before a lot on this board were born.
I HAVE RECORDS from the early 1970's that I BOUGHT,
You think I don't know that much about this stuff when you are operating from the flawed
premise that a 100,000 dollar system is a great deal different from a 10,000
system, when the difference is actually slight, the extra cash going to gain a few tenths
of a few percent over the cheaper system.
And you don't even understand what I am saying, that a slight improvement is what you're paying for. And heres' another shocker, ace, if that 100,000 "system is comprised
of a tube amp and one of those ridiculous 5,000 record players, it will probably sound
worse than the 10,000 system if that system has modern electronics and a decent CD player. This is what your precious "specs" say anyway.
But haven't you heard? "audiophiles" don't care about "specs", they care about what they
"imagine" they are hearing in their little irrelevant world.:1:

Hey - Stay on topic here buddy. No where did I ever talk about which format was winning and what is the wave of the future. I obviously called you out on your unsubstantiated views and what do you do, you switch the topic. Sounds like I'm right about your lack of experience and knowledge.

So, once again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Now, about the topic you've changed the subject to, I agree with you almost 100% - but that isn't what I asked you about earlier.

So, again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Just answer the question Pix.

Ajani
12-10-2010, 04:48 PM
Hey - Stay on topic here buddy. No where did I ever talk about which format was winning and what is the wave of the future. I obviously called you out on your unsubstantiated views and what do you do, you switch the topic. Sounds like I'm right about your lack of experience and knowledge.

So, once again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Now, about the topic you've changed the subject to, I agree with you almost 100% - but that isn't what I asked you about earlier.

So, again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Just answer the question Pix.

Let's not be so harsh Adam... If we actually require members to have a reasonable basis for their opinions, rather than just bashing products they've never even listened to, then what kind of forum would we have? :devil:

The last time I challenged a forum member on having unsubstantiated views, he started stalking me around the forum and calling me names... And I thought I left kindergarten well over 2 decades ago

pixelthis
12-12-2010, 03:05 AM
Hey - Stay on topic here buddy. No where did I ever talk about which format was winning and what is the wave of the future. I obviously called you out on your unsubstantiated views and what do you do, you switch the topic. Sounds like I'm right about your lack of experience and knowledge.

So, once again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Now, about the topic you've changed the subject to, I agree with you almost 100% - but that isn't what I asked you about earlier.

So, again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Just answer the question Pix.

I guess this is a point where we will never agree.
I know where you're going with this, and I AM NOT GOING TO FALL FOR IT.
Not my first time to the rodeo.
What you are trying to get me to say is that I have heard few or none "analog"
systems costing 100 grand, and then you're going to cart out some 100 grand system
'that you claim is superior because of all of the money poured into it.
WHAT YOUR ERROR IS is that you think you can actually pour money into a certain type
of system and it will sound great because of it. Big problem with that(its called putting lipstick on a pig).
MAINLY that no matter how much crystal meth you pump into a racing horse,
it will never outrace even the most underpowered of cars.
And no matter how many nines you engineer a tube amp and record player to,
they will NEVER outperform even a modestly built Solid state amp and digital source.
I used to work at an airport, and on all but the cheapest planes, turboprops and jets
are replacing (or have replaced) piston engines, main reason being that they are better on all counts.
Sometimes something is so inherently inferior and obsolete that you cant make it
a contender no matter how much you pour into it. AND even if you could, that would be irrelevant to anybody outside of a lab. Very few can or will pay for such a system.
THATS WHY PEOPLE drive cars instead of fly helicopters to work.
I have heard plenty of tube gear at various audio stores here and there , but none of it
beat even modestly priced solid state gear, and it wouldn't matter if it cost 10 grand or a 100 grand, its still wouldn't be able to overcome fundamental shortcomings of the form factor.
HOW MANY "tube" sets do you see at modern electronics stores? RIGHT.
And there is a reason for that. Tubes produce gobs of distortion, call it that "warm"
tube sound all you want, its still not accurate. TUBES die early, but what has that to do with the sound? Well, while they are dying their performance changes, even with new ones their performance changes with their temperature, age, YOU NAME IT.
And the heat they produce is bad for anything in the unit.
I used to work on some old tube units, back when I went through electronics.
PEOPLE DIDN'T PINE for the latest "tube" amp, mostly they couldn't wait to get rid of one
for a new solid state amp. THE TUBE fad is something that started picking up in the eighties in earnest. ONE good thing about it, The Soviet bloc has a place to unload
their obsolete junk.
But again you are not paying attention, doesn't matter how many analog systems
I have heard, no matter what the cost, ten grand, one hundred grand, one million dollars,
you can't pump money into something that is basically obsolete and make it superior
to something that is inherently more advanced. And even if you could, what would be the point? Why waste the money? Might as well be trying to turn a PIPER cub into a
lunar lander.:1:

JoeE SP9
12-12-2010, 08:08 AM
Hey - Stay on topic here buddy. No where did I ever talk about which format was winning and what is the wave of the future. I obviously called you out on your unsubstantiated views and what do you do, you switch the topic. Sounds like I'm right about your lack of experience and knowledge.

So, once again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Now, about the topic you've changed the subject to, I agree with you almost 100% - but that isn't what I asked you about earlier.

So, again, I ask you, how many $100,000.00+ analog systems have you heard?

Just answer the question Pix.

C'mon aa. You're wasting time and words.:mad2: The "fount of all audio knowledge" never answers a question like that. :prrr:

He doesn't need to listen to anything. :rolleyes: He knows it all. :ihih:

pixelthis
12-13-2010, 02:37 AM
C'mon aa. You're wasting time and words.:mad2: The "fount of all audio knowledge" never answers a question like that. :prrr:

He doesn't need to listen to anything. :rolleyes: He knows it all. :ihih:

The "fount" of all knowledge has been around the block a few times.
You want to waste coin on an obsolete system that can't outperform a 200 dollar Sherwood
stereo receiver, go ahead, knock yourself out. ITS a free country.
YOU WANT two SET monoblocks , about ten watts each, hooked up to a 5,000
record player, go ahead. ENJOY your audible distortion, trying to find replacement tubes,
having the adventure that is ownership of an obsolete piece of gear.
HARLEY or BMW motorcycle? Your choice, really.
Just remember, you can't deny reality. Commies made the same circuital arguments
when trying to explain away their idiotic system. It still fell apart.
And your tube system, weather 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 , will still stink on ice compared to solid state. No way around it.:1:

atomicAdam
12-13-2010, 09:40 AM
Well Pix,

All I can say is that I'm pretty disappointed in you as a member on this forum. I guess it is good to have you around as entertainment value but otherwise your willingness to jump to conclusions without hearing a system first makes your opinion on audio mute.

If you had answered yes I was just going to say, OK, well, you gave it a shot and you like this other thing better. Who am I to say what you should or shouldn't like. But since you weren't even able to answer my question, and you assumed I was going to take you to a Rodeo, you never got the chance to let me say that.

Now if you had answered no, I would have encouraged you to go and give a $100,000.00+ vinyl system a listen, and a $100,000.00+ digital system a listen.

But since you didn't answer the question, and tried to switch the topic when I called you out, and you assumed I was going to take you to a Rodeo, I'm going to be watching your post for your unsubstantiated flame bating and I will act upon such post in a fashion that may end up with your banishment from the forums.

Now for me, at that price point and above, the source starts to become mute for me. I've heard, because I actually like to hear something before forming an opinion, unlike you, tube, analog, vinyl and tape, CD, computer, solid state, systems at that price point and above and they all sound fantastic. Sure there are certain qualities of one system I may like above another, but their ability to reproduce analog vs digital source material is often quite equal.

GMichael
12-13-2010, 10:18 AM
Rodeo? There's a rodeo in town? Can I join you two?


Sorry. I just couldn't stop myself. I'm a baaaaaaad poster.

atomicAdam
12-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Rodeo? There's a rodeo in town? Can I join you two?


Sorry. I just couldn't stop myself. I'm a baaaaaaad poster.

Sheeesh - and I wear cowboy boots too!

I get to stand a whooping 6ft 6 when I got them on. It is fun!

pixelthis
12-13-2010, 03:00 PM
Well Pix,

All I can say is that I'm pretty disappointed in you as a member on this forum. I guess it is good to have you around as entertainment value but otherwise your willingness to jump to conclusions without hearing a system first makes your opinion on audio mute.

If you had answered yes I was just going to say, OK, well, you gave it a shot and you like this other thing better. Who am I to say what you should or shouldn't like. But since you weren't even able to answer my question, and you assumed I was going to take you to a Rodeo, you never got the chance to let me say that.

Now if you had answered no, I would have encouraged you to go and give a $100,000.00+ vinyl system a listen, and a $100,000.00+ digital system a listen.

But since you didn't answer the question, and tried to switch the topic when I called you out, and you assumed I was going to take you to a Rodeo, I'm going to be watching your post for your unsubstantiated flame bating and I will act upon such post in a fashion that may end up with your banishment from the forums.

Now for me, at that price point and above, the source starts to become mute for me. I've heard, because I actually like to hear something before forming an opinion, unlike you, tube, analog, vinyl and tape, CD, computer, solid state, systems at that price point and above and they all sound fantastic. Sure there are certain qualities of one system I may like above another, but their ability to reproduce analog vs digital source material is often quite equal.

I have answered your question.
Talking to you analog types is like debating commies during the cold war.
Solid state is Superior to analog.
HOW is that "jumping to conclusions"???
Its just a simple fact
And like most of the commies who refuse to face reality even while their unworkable system falls around them, you refuse to face reality also, even to the point of talking
about "banishing" those who don't agree with you.
I have heard systems of all types also, and its just a matter of fact that a modern system
is better than an obsolete one. OF course this is going to be a moot argument soon,
because tube manufacture requires a huge industrial base.
Already surplus tubes are used in some gear. As the number of tube types decreases
and economies get worse, this tech will eventually disappear.
And then the argument will be over.:1:

pixelthis
12-13-2010, 03:02 PM
Rodeo? There's a rodeo in town? Can I join you two?


Sorry. I just couldn't stop myself. I'm a baaaaaaad poster.

THERES ALWAYS a rodeo around here. Haven t you seen how deep it gets around here
sometimes?:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-13-2010, 03:38 PM
THERES ALWAYS a rodeo around here. Haven t you seen how deep it gets around here
sometimes?:1:

And it gets deeper once you participate in the discussion.

atomicAdam
12-13-2010, 07:22 PM
I have answered your question.
Talking to you analog types is like debating commies during the cold war.
Solid state is Superior to analog.
HOW is that "jumping to conclusions"???
Its just a simple fact
And like most of the commies who refuse to face reality even while their unworkable system falls around them, you refuse to face reality also, even to the point of talking
about "banishing" those who don't agree with you.
I have heard systems of all types also, and its just a matter of fact that a modern system
is better than an obsolete one. OF course this is going to be a moot argument soon,
because tube manufacture requires a huge industrial base.
Already surplus tubes are used in some gear. As the number of tube types decreases
and economies get worse, this tech will eventually disappear.
And then the argument will be over.:1:


Pix - you didn't answer my question, unless your answer was not answering it.

Second, did you even read what I wrote in my post?

GMichael
12-14-2010, 06:21 AM
THERES ALWAYS a rodeo around here. Haven t you seen how deep it gets around here
sometimes?:1:

How could I miss it? You shovel it on fast and deep.
Hey, I won't be spinning LP's again anytime soon either. But I don't mind answering the question you keep avoiding. "No, I have never heard a $100k analog system." See how easy that was?:ciappa:

poppachubby
12-14-2010, 07:12 AM
Funny, I am just readint this for the first time. I actually thought it was about shirts and didn't bother.

I love vinyl, but I also love my rips, and I have fallen in love with my Squeezebox Touch.

Convenience has caused the death of many things, maybe it will kill off analog too. I guess that's a good thing? I see people hangin out in Wal-Marts instead of town squres and shops...that is what digital will do.

Ajani
12-14-2010, 08:34 AM
Funny, I am just readint this for the first time. I actually thought it was about shirts and didn't bother.

I love vinyl, but I also love my rips, and I have fallen in love with my Squeezebox Touch.

SHAME on you! You are banished from the Analog Synagogue... Security will relieve you of your ID pass and escort you out... Also send your turntable and LP collection to me, so that I may 'dispose' of them...


Convenience has caused the death of many things, maybe it will kill off analog too. I guess that's a good thing? I see people hangin out in Wal-Marts instead of town squres and shops...that is what digital will do.

Maybe... If it means that audiophiles will focus on pushing the kind of studio quality High Res that Sir T keeps talking about, then the death of analog would be a good thing... But if there is no drive to really push High Res digital, then it would just be a loss of an alternative for audiophiles...