Mytrcraft is an idiot.

[skeptic]

"Like I have said My wife has heard the changes in my system for the better or for the worse."

Has it ever occurred to you that by this point she is so fed up with your audio mania, she will tell you anything just to get you off her back?

When she said for better or worse, in sickness and in health, she never dreamt it would get this bad or that the sickness would be an obsession with audio equipment to the point that you would be positioning your speakers until they were within the right spot to the last sixteenth of an inch.

[996turbo]

why will not you guys answer some simple questions.

WHAT HAVE YOU LISTENED TO????

[newbsterv2]

Skeptic I've always loved your scientific explanations and lack of bullsh$!. But damn I never knew you to be so damned FUNNY! I can't stop laughing at your posts! Have at this clown it's entertainment for all of us!

"The audiophile can make out differences between equipment because he is obssessed with natural, uncolored sound."

People who are really obsessed with natural uncolored sound listen to live music. That is the ONLY uncolored sound there is. And you can easily tell how obsessed with music they are by the kind of music they listen to.

People who are obsessed with travel don't spend their lives looking at photographs and travel films. They pack their bags, get in cars, planes, trains, on ships and they GO. People who love music listen to live music and if they are really involved, they play a musical instrument. They don't settle for facsimiles made by machines from recordings. They see that for what it is, a poor substitute when you can't have the real thing. Kind of like looking at pornography when you can't have sex.

[996turbo]

My wife knows it is my hobby and respects it just as I respect her hobbies. I have a loving wife who enjoys music also.

If you have a nice sports car are you not going to keep it clean and tuned up. If you do not understand how important speaker placement is then you will never understand how important all the other factors are. The imaging and focus rely to a large extent on placement. If you have not witnessed that simple fact you will never hear the differences gear can make.
If your cars front right tire pressure is off by 5 lbs it will pull to the right just as if your front right speaker is towed out more the sound will be off center.
I think this is basic audio knowledge.

[E-Stat]

And your arguement to the contrary is....? I suppose you will tell us you can hear a big big difference just the way the cable people argue.

"Big difference" is a relative term. I would characterize them as "decidedly noticeable". For most folks, such differences are irrelevant. They do, however, exist for discerning music lovers. That is to say of course IF and WHEN you actually have the benefit of experiencing what I am referring to. The Burmester 969/970 combo has the widest image and most extended frequency extremes vs. any other player I've heard. Naturally, that unit was not on a mid-fi system.

And you can attribute it to what? Less digital jitter? Lower harmonic distortion? Lower noise? Lack of gremlins? I admitted they sound different but when I change them out, re-equalizing the systems again so far always makes the new one sound just like the old one did.

I'm a software engineer, not an EE, so all I can do is speculate as to what I hear. The likely answer is all of the above. As for gremlins, I am not convinced that The Engineers know all there is no know about musical reproduction. Any more than they did when CDs first came out. The first CD players were dreadful. Any more than when SS first came out. Similarly, the first SS units were dreadful. The necessary analog sections in most cheapie players is a $.49 IC chip.

What evidence do you have to suggest that frequency response isn't the ENTIRE story?

As I've asked before, How do you increase apparent stage width via changes in frequency response? How do you increase the focus on individual instruments? While the answer given was "high end" tilt, that answer just doesn't fly. Cranking the treble on a mid-fi receiver is not going to make it sound like the best discrete components.

rw

[skeptic]

" The necessary analog sections in most cheapie players is a $.49 IC chip."

Once again there is the obvious mistake amatures make of equating cost with performance. And the error could hardly be more telling than in the selling price of an IC chip. The original chip design and tooling cost many many millions of dollars. But the profits from producing the chip has amortized the that cost a long time ago. These chips aren't sold in the thousands or tens of thousands, they have been sold in the billions. That is part of the reason why a cd player for a computer costs only $5 retail. Consider that a 5 cent wristwatch chip will far outperform a $10,000 Rolex watch of 50 years ago. Ain't technology amazing?

[996turbo]

are you not going to answer any of my questions Skeptic or Zapped

[E-Stat]

Once again there is the obvious mistake amatures make of equating cost with performance.

I guess that explains why there are a sum total of zero high performance preamps on the market that use op amps exclusively for signal. Can you think of any?

Consider that a 5 cent wristwatch chip will far outperform a $10,000 Rolex watch of 50 years ago. Ain't technology amazing?

It is. I would guess, however, that $8,000 of the Oyster Presidential's cost is for the 18k gold and 100 meter water proof machining.

rw

[skeptic]

"I guess that explains why there are a sum total of zero high performance preamps on the market that use op amps exclusively for signal. Can you think of any? "

Probably turned out to be the wrong application for an op amp. Those op amps are fine for other applications though.

"I would guess, however, that $8,000 of the Oyster Presidential's cost is for the 18k gold and 100 meter water proof machining."

If you want to invest in gold that is one thing. A chip could be encapsulated in acrylic for 10 cents and become waterproof to far greater depth. Of course changing the battery would be a *****.

[E-Stat]

Probably turned out to be the wrong application for an op amp. Those op amps are fine for other applications though.

I am more optimistic than that. While the best preamps by far today use tubes or discrete FETs bathed in ultra stiff power supplies, I think eventually op amps will have their day for signal apps. We're just not there yet.

If you want to invest in gold that is one thing. A chip could be encapsulated in acrylic for 10 cents and become waterproof to far greater depth. Of course changing the battery would be a *****.

I was merely pointing out that your example involved a lot more than simply the cost of mechanical timepieces. As I have always been fascinated by watches, I have about half a dozen, most of which are quite inexpensive. Clearly the most accurate by far is my $39 Casio Atomic Watch. Turns out the cesium clock in Bolder is kinda sorta dead accurate. Waaay beyond our lifetimes. Having said that, the "appreciation for fine machines" guy in me still enjoys the quality and workmanship of my Omega Speedmaster. For scuba diving, I use a different Casio watch that I consider expendible.

BTW, clearly a *big* chunk of the cost of the superlative Burmester 969/970 units is due to their incredibly over engineered design. The front panel of either unit costs more than many an inexpensive CDP. They are absolutely gorgeous to hear and to look at. They are the two units below the Kuzma turntable on the left. (Warning: 500k image for dialup folks)

The best CD Transport / DAC I've heard


rw

[skeptic]

High quality regulated power supplies are not overkill, they are an integral part of well designed electronics. Fancy front panels are. I gave up buying tube electronics a long time ago when equipment that didn't self destruct from the moment you turn it on became available. Future op amps may be equal to the task of high performance audio preamplification. If they are, it will cut the cost considerably.

There are many people for whom performance is everything and fancy styling is nothing. Some of these loudspeaker cabinets that try to look like the most expensive furniture seem crazy to me. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the photo on your hot link looks like one of the ugliest piles of junk I've ever seen. What is that stupid tonearm supposed to be about? What are those "exotic" front panels made of anyway, mirrors or Lucite? Personally, I prefer anodized aluminum common in the seventies and eighties.

[E-Stat]

For example, the photo on your hot link looks like one of the ugliest piles of junk I've ever seen. What is that stupid tonearm supposed to be about? What are those "exotic" front panels made of anyway, mirrors or Lucite? Personally, I prefer anodized aluminum common in the seventies and eighties.

The Kuzma has an air bearing tonearm. I prefer the VPI to the right. The front panels on the Burmesters are polished chrome and really do look nice in person. The remaining panels are all anodized aluminum. I care most as to the performance where they excel.

rw

[newbsterv2]

Any fan of Mahler is a friend of mine. Tell me. How well does Kaplan conduct Mahler's 2nd?

The Kuzma has an air bearing tonearm. I prefer the VPI to the right. The front panels on the Burmesters are polished chrome and really do look nice in person. The remaining panels are all anodized aluminum. I care most as to the performance where they excel.

rw

[hertz]

"The audiophile can make out differences between equipment because he is obssessed with natural, uncolored sound."

People who are really obsessed with natural uncolored sound listen to live music. That is the ONLY uncolored sound there is. And you can easily tell how obsessed with music they are by the kind of music they listen to.

People who are obsessed with travel don't spend their lives looking at photographs and travel films. They pack their bags, get in cars, planes, trains, on ships and they GO. People who love music listen to live music and if they are really involved, they play a musical instrument. They don't settle for facsimiles made by machines from recordings. They see that for what it is, a poor substitute when you can't have the real thing. Kind of like looking at pornography when you can't have sex.

Skeptic..I totally disagree with you .Your personal attacks or turbo is also uncalled for.You are assuming lot things here.Do you know that person that much to say that he is not having a healthy personal or social life ? What crap are you talking about ?

Lot of people cultivate hobbies.Unfortunately, music reproduction at high quality levels and its enjoyment is a very solo thing.This is due to the fact that it involves a dedicated listening room and sitting at the sweet spot.And people who have discovered that level of quality derives so much happiness and magic out of it.People who have not reached that level either don't have that much interest or inclination and they go about talking crap about things they don't have any experience in.
Give him a break. He knows what he is talking about.I personally have friends who have dedicated listening rooms and and a decent system setup properly. Listening to music at their place is enlightening.The realism gives me goose bumps.
And most of them have a good social life and family life.Most stereophile audiophiles I know have a casual music system which is part of their HT setup in their living rooms in which they do their casual listening.But they might spend a few hours daily with their primary setup which is true with any other hobbies like fishing, motorcycles, reading, painting, photography, internet surfing etc....So what is the big deal ? Do you think all audiophiles should have their music system setup in the kitchen so that the wify and children can chime in whenever he wants to listen to music.What rubbish !

I agree to the fact that live music cannot be matched at home.But all music lovers don't have the time to go to live shows.They want to recreate something close to it at home.THEY WANT TO ENJOY MUSIC AT HOME..PERIOD ! This is possible if you have the right kind of setup.I know there are a lot of variables when it comes to music reproduction at home and live music.But a crappy system is always a CRAPPY one and it will color the sound much more than a good one setup properly.

[hertz]

No..I do not agree.All of us hear the same differences.But most of us have different tastes in music so each of us have bought different equipment due the the fact that all the equipment have a signature sound and each of of like a different signature. I bought a nad but my friend likes the marantz sound. But both of hate the sound of the harman kardon dvd player I have lying around.
My point is that no equipment is totally neutral.All have their own signature sound and each of us prefer different.But high end equipment colors the sound less that the Crappy mass market jap stuff.

[Sondek]

" The necessary analog sections in most cheapie players is a $.49 IC chip."

Once again there is the obvious mistake amatures make of equating cost with performance. And the error could hardly be more telling than in the selling price of an IC chip. The original chip design and tooling cost many many millions of dollars. But the profits from producing the chip has amortized the that cost a long time ago. These chips aren't sold in the thousands or tens of thousands, they have been sold in the billions. That is part of the reason why a cd player for a computer costs only $5 retail. Consider that a 5 cent wristwatch chip will far outperform a $10,000 Rolex watch of 50 years ago. Ain't technology amazing?

The price of a rotel RCD-855 opamp ($399 player) was probably $1.50. A new opamp installed costs $4.00. It has the same detail-producing ability as a discreet stage exhibits (IE a Naim CDS3).

[skeptic]

It is unfortunate that you could not have taken a better picture to at least present you point. The quality of the photograph stinks.

[996turbo]

Skeptic..I totally disagree with you .Your personal attacks or turbo is also uncalled for.You are assuming lot things here.Do you know that person that much to say that he is not having a healthy personal or social life ? What crap are you talking about ?

Lot of people cultivate hobbies.Unfortunately, music reproduction at high quality levels and its enjoyment is a very solo thing.This is due to the fact that it involves a dedicated listening room and sitting at the sweet spot.And people who have discovered that level of quality derives so much happiness and magic out of it.People who have not reached that level either don't have that much interest or inclination and they go about talking crap about things they don't have any experience in.
Give him a break. He knows what he is talking about.I personally have friends who have dedicated listening rooms and and a decent system setup properly. Listening to music at their place is enlightening.The realism gives me goose bumps.
And most of them have a good social life and family life.Most stereophile audiophiles I know have a casual music system which is part of their HT setup in their living rooms in which they do their casual listening.But they might spend a few hours daily with their primary setup which is true with any other hobbies like fishing, motorcycles, reading, painting, photography, internet surfing etc....So what is the big deal ? Do you think all audiophiles should have their music system setup in the kitchen so that the wify and children can chime in whenever he wants to listen to music.What rubbish !

I agree to the fact that live music cannot be matched at home.But all music lovers don't have the time to go to live shows.They want to recreate something close to it at home.THEY WANT TO ENJOY MUSIC AT HOME..PERIOD ! This is possible if you have the right kind of setup.I know there are a lot of variables when it comes to music reproduction at home and live music.But a crappy system is always a CRAPPY one and it will color the sound much more than a good one setup properly.

I have alot of friends and on a given friday my house has 7-8 kids running around and 3-4 couples socializing. I bet I spend less time with my system than some of those golf fanatics. everybody has a hobby. Like I have said in the past I spent alot of money on my system. I feel that I would be wasting the money if I did not spend the time to get it dialed in properly. People seem to think that you are a snob if you have nice things. I am sorry for those people. If you work hard in life there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of labor. If I was just some rich person who put the system in a room with the speakers against the walls with no thought to placement that would be the real snob. I bought my stereo for personal enjoyment and me putting the care into how it is setup proves that it is not just a piece of Jewelry.

[996turbo]

Skeptic obviously has no idea what he is looking at. All of that gear is awesome. The Burmeister is a sight to behold that produces some beautiful music. My father told me that all the problems in life can be distilled to one thing. Ignorance. Think about it.

[Resident Loser]

...how strident and petulant of you...

ADC, Adcom, Advent, Allison, Altec-Lansing, Acoustic Research, Audak, Audio Control, Audio Research, B&O, B&W, Bozak, Bose, B*I*C, Carver, Cello, Criterion(LRE), Crown, Dahlquist, Dual, Dynaco, Electro-Voice, Fisher, Garrard, HH Scott, Harmon Kardon, Heathkit, Hitachi, Infinity, JBL, JVC, Kenwood, KLH, Klipsch, Koss, Krell, Marantz, Mark Levinson, Magnepan, Magnaplanar, McIntosh, Micro Seiki, NAD, Ohm, Ortofon, Onkyo, PE, Pickering, Pioneer, Phase Linear, Phillips, Polk, Quad, Radio Shack, Rek-O-Kut, Revox, SAE, Sennheiser, Sequerra, Sherwood, Shure, SME, Sony, Soundcraftsmen, Sound Concepts, Stanton, STAX, Tascam, Tandberg, Teac, Thorens, Warfdale, Western Electric...

It's difficult to remember them all...many of them now gone, along with the many retailers who sold them...The point is, folks like Woodman, skeptic and myself have seen and heard far greater variety of hi-fi gear than you probably ever will...from the days of single-sided 78s and their non-standardized EQs to digital...From the days when "hi-fi" didn't even exist, unless you were DIYing it, when it truly was a hobby in the best sense of the word...direct 16in. transcriptions, wire recorders, RTR, mono LPs, Stereo LPs(not to forget stereo itself), FM and FM stereo, cassettes, CDs, MP3s, memory chips...far greater listening experience, technical background and just plain common sense it would seem...

Howzabout on the production side(as opposed to reproduction)..Ampeg, Dallas-Arbiter, Electro-Voice, Electro-harmonix, Fender, Farfisa, Gibson, Guild, Gretsch, Hammond, Kustom, Marshall, Neumann, Peavey, Pignose, Shure, Rickenbacker, Vox...

Done much live recording? Ever been present at the performance, done the miking and mixing and listened to the playback of the final cut? Do you have THAT point of reference?

If your going to try turning things into a p!$$!ng match, a word of advice...don't pee into the wind...

jimHJJ(...TTFN...)

[996turbo]

Now the question is since you seem to have alot of experience. Lets talk on a rational level.

Was there any difference in any of that gear?

Having the experience would you say that some equipment was worth more than other.

In the recording area are there any differences among mikes or digital devices like a DCS upsampler to the less expensive ones.

I have found that most profesional sound people are not as much into stereos as an audiophile. They are more interested in the live event. I personally think that most of the live events I have been to sound horrible in comparison to my system. This is due to the fact that they are not going for Timbral acuracy. They want to flood a large area with sound. I am of course talking of amplified music here and not acoustic or orchestral.

I noticed that alot of that gear is older stuff when engineering of Levinson was years ahead of the pack. Today the gear differences are smaller in the stratosphere but I think because back then there were fewer high end companies.

[996turbo]

And yes I have set up sound at a show mixed it and heard the feed straight off the board.

[Resident Loser]

"...Was there any difference in any of that gear?..."

As far as speakers are concerned, then as now, yes...other stuff...well, specs improved over time, the materials used did likewise, circuit topologies evolved, SS pretty much won out over tubes...however, like gear exhibited similar sound and it was the speakers that pretty much defined it...and you must take into account the continuing tech improvements in recording and the ever-changing performance and recording styles; acoustic to electric, mono to stereo and now analog to digital, some of which are horribly incompatible on one level, yet peerless on an artistic one.

"...Having the experience would you say that some equipment was worth more than other..."

In what way? Cost vs. value? In the 80s there was the Advent reciever rated @15wpc...blew the doors off some more expensive and higher powered gear and the tuner section was no slouch either...Tom Schotz as I recall(I could be wrong)...there was a time Fisher and Marantz were the ne plus ultra...we all know that tune...I personally am investigating inexpensive, quality gear and how it compares to my reference system.

"...In the recording area are there any differences among mikes or digital devices like a DCS upsampler to the less expensive ones..."

As far as digital...let's just say I prefer analog and that is my reference...to me, number-crunching is always going to be an approximation...Different mikes exhibit different characteristics...dynamic, condenser, omni, cardoid...some better suited to close techniques as opposed to field miking, X-Y, etc. some more suitable with specific instruments or even voices and styles...Additonally it has become more of a production choice, depending on the preferences of those involved.

"...I have found that most profesional sound people are not as much into stereos as an audiophile. They are more interested in the live event. I personally think that most of the live events I have been to sound horrible in comparison to my system. This is due to the fact that they are not going for Timbral acuracy. They want to flood a large area with sound. I am of course talking of amplified music here and not acoustic or orchestral..."

Unfortunately, many folks(myself included) have fallen into the "audiophile" trap. For some unknown reason, because we have invested time and money in what really is just another "divertimento", we tend to get self-righteous...we know best and we refer to our record collection as "program material" and use terms like "reference system"...much to the annoyance of some.

My interest in recording is soup to nuts...an attempt to correlate what goes in to what comes out...solos to small combos...either in a controlled environment or smaller clubs. I must say, knowing what THE live performance sounds like gives one an entirely different perspective...The recording and playback process introduces various forms of signal compression and other anomolies...If you're looking for a sonic hologram, well...fuggedaboudit!...Close, but no cigar...The best results have been with binaural...

"...I noticed that alot of that gear is older stuff when engineering of Levinson was years ahead of the pack. Today the gear differences are smaller in the stratosphere but I think because back then there were fewer high end companies..."

All those names I mentioned were more for a reference point...

You really have to keep one thing in mind...it doesn't matter what you may be selling, some things remain a constant...unless you can employ the economies of scale, you must set yourself apart...it can be a unique design, using mil-spec parts...limited production will sell for a tidy sum...it follows a cost vs. price formula based on a number of economic variables...marketing or at least understanding the basic priciples thereof and exploiting your customer base is as important as anything else in your enterprise...In some cases it's legitimate quality. In others, it's just hype.

Actually, there was little need for the cottage industry of esoteric audio...obviously they were there, but...the good stuff was available on a far wider scale...it was the advent of HT that really destroyed audio(as I grew up knowing it) and turned it into just another appliance...there doesn't seem to be a middle ground, pretty much mass-market and high-end...

jimHJJ(...but that's just me...)

[Pat D]

There's been a lot of techno/psychological babble in this forum over years. As somebody who actually DID ABX testing at some point in my life I can tell that this "there's no difference" thing is completely false. Sonic character is sometimes so obvious you don't need no ABX to tell two components appart.

To make things worse, the premise on which the ABX brigade on this forum is starting their argument is the wrong, dare I say unscientific way of approaching the subject of Double Blind Testing. For instance medical DBT is usually set up to highlight the existence of postulated differences and any kind of similar testing should be set up the very same way in order to be meaningful. Whoever states otherwise probably had no experience in any kind of testing whatsoever.

Besides there IS one magazine out there that relies on a blind listening panel (not DBT though, but all levels are carefully matched) and measurements for its testing and reporting. They seem to corelate good bench performance with equally good sonic performance on most cases. Imagine that! What a concept!

Regardless, there is enough info out there that, while not 100% pure scientific, is credible enough to suggest there is actually a difference in sonic character between components. Further there is also empirical evidence that suggests that differences tend to dissappear as the level of real world engineering (or shall I say the actual amount of thought put into designing and manufacturing) in competing products gets higher.

In my not so humble oppinion ignoring all this without further investigation and simply dismissing it just because it was not the result of an 100% scientific experiment shows pure and crass ignorance. It is also contrary to most of the scientific or engineering principles I'm aware of. In the world we're all living on, empirical data is essential to R&D, thus essential in advancing technology (regardless of the field).

Finally this forum was a total waste of time 5 years ago. 3 years back was still a waste. Coming back this week feels no better.

While I totally disagree with the unprovoked attack that started this thread I can certainly feel some of the original poster's somewhat justified frustration.

Sorry.

Peace!

The fact that one cannot prove two things are the same does not justify all sorts of positive claims. When the differences are prima facie below the JNDs, then claims of sonic differences are highly suspect.

Of course one ordinarily has a reason for doing a DBT or SBT. Why would a consumer bother to do a DBT or SBT if he/she did not think they heard any differences? Maybe for the interest.

Many of us do not think informing consumers about unlikely claims is a waste of time.

[skeptic]

I know a poorly made photograph when I see one.