-
Fair 'nough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Reid
...
I have NO problem with the idea that a properly setup M/C system would sound better than a 2 channel setup using the SAME quality components.... BUT this fails to take into account the substantial price difference between the two.... (Which is in IMHO why M/C has not totally crushed redbook CDs and may never really take off)....
....
However if you were to build a M/C setup of similiar quality to our $4k 2 channel setup, then I would expect the M/C to sound significantly better... but NOTE, to build a M/C of that quality would likely cost around $12K. (3 times as many speakers and 3 times as much amplification and processing)....
....
For sure, to build an M/C system of comparable quality will cost you more than stereo. Not only that, the M/C system will be a lot harder to set up in most rooms, and whereas dipole planars, (such as my Magneplanar 1.6's), might be doable for stereo, one might just not have the space for them going M/C.
Nevertheless -- and I dare say you won't agree -- with a given budget, I would go for M/C if it were true that a majority of new recordings were well-made M/C. Of course, this is a long way from being the case.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Quite true regarding the range of A/V reciever quality because we mustn't forget that an A/V reciever is being asked to provide 6 or 7 X 90 watts per channel(amongst all it's other functions) which obviously is asking a lot out of any reasonably priced component.Is it logical to think that those channels are all putting out the same powerful clean signal that a dedicated 2 channel combo puts out.
That is highly dependent on the receiver you're talking about, and which amp combo you're talking about. Another point that you've missed is that speakers are rarely driven with more than ONE watt of power to achieve normal listening levels in medium sized rooms. The amp load is highly dependent on the types of speakers that you select. You might question the "logic" of whether a receiver is putting out the same powered signal as a dedicated two-channel amp, but that argument's a non-starter because 1) the amp will rarely, if ever, be required to deliver at full wattage; and 2) a multichannel receiver does not play CDs with all channels driven, unless you want it to, in which case you're listening with a layer of signal processing that makes any comparison to two-channel irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Unless you're feeding that source to an external power some of the improved sound you say the SACD's produce is obviously offset by the inherent weaknesses an A/V reciever has.If they built an A/V reciever that could do it all equally well very few of us could afford one.
Again, you're making some presumptuous statements here, and equating cost with performance. The point that you miss here is that there are cost reductions associated with higher volumes. AV receivers are in much higher demand in the market right now. As such, they are produced in higher volumes than analog two-channel components, which lowers unit costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
They can only fit so much in one box so even in 2-channel mode a reciever still has a limited amount of power to provide the scheer power that very good speakers require.I'm talking about your typical decent quality A/V recievers,not the outrageously good ones that most people can't or don't want to spring for that have completely separate dedicated sections inside them that do everything and do it very well.
And how much power do "very good" speakers require? Are you listening at concert levels? Do you actually have experience with the midlevel receivers that are on the market right now? Unless you're trying to power inefficient low impedance speakers in a multichannel configuration, none of the models I'm familiar with have any limitations whatsoever with most of the speakers out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I['m sure we both realize we're not talking apples to apples here anyway as multi-channel and 2 channel couldn't be any more different.Where we do part ways is your theory that a $150 SACD player will more than suffice for someone with a critical ear in a high end 2 channel system and I know there are other people out there who own fabulous redbook CD players other than myself who would also beg to differ with you.
Again, you're using highly presumptuous language here regarding who has a "critical ear" and whether a $150 SACD player (which you have no experience with) will "more than suffice" for them. You can "beg to differ" with me all you want, but the difference is that I've actually listened to Sony's low end SACD players, as well as the Arcam CD72. I'm not saying that they're identical, but they're a lot closer than you give credit for. And I would question if anyone (including myself) can reliably differentiate between them if the listening took place under blind conditions. In blind listening tests I've done, many differences that I thought were "night and day" under sighted conditions turned out to be far less obvious when I was not told in advance what changes took place betwen listenings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
You're right about me not tweaking out my HT system for optimum CD playback including SACD format but I still haven't heard anyone here say there is a wide enough selection of these disks to even justify the time and expense.
This point is entirely subjective. To me, it's worthwhile simply because I'd been wanting to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in their full multichannel DSD resolution. They sounded so good in two-channel that I was compelled to get a SACD player to hear them in multichannel, and that track did not disappoint. What I spent on my SACD player was about the same as the cost of the tickets to attend just one of those recorded concerts with my wife. If you want to see what discs are out there, go to www.sa-cd.net.
If you're using your HT system for movies, you still need to optimize the system. If you don't take the effort to optimize your multichannel experience, then of course you'll persistently come away with negative impressions. Things like level matching, timbre matching the speakers, optimizing the delay timing, properly setting up the bass management, etc. are highly consequential variables that you don't worry about with two-channel listening, but can make or break the imaging cues and tonal coherency with multichannel playback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
To look at it as a Home theatre set-up that also play SACD's is certainly a logical and financially sound approach,but what happens when you're playing the other 80 or 90% of the available CD's that only come in Redbook format.Is there no compromise there.
Of course there is a compromise if you're taking a set budget and listing out the components that can be purchased within that budget. But, I take a more linear view of putting together an audio system. As I've stated countless times on this board, you don't have to buy the entire system all at once. If you add the speakers gradually, rather than all at once, then costs are more incremental. My current system started entirely as a two-channel setup, and the speakers were gradually added as my budget allowed. The only difference is that at the outset I went with a multichannel receiver rather than a two-channel amp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
It's certainly a personal preference but I'd rather focus time and money on the Redbook set-up and leave the HT set-up to do what it was originally designed to do.I'm unsure how much priority you put into your 2-channel system in terms of quality to ensure optimum sound so It's impossible for me to know what you're comparing your SACD set-up to and that's as relative to this discussion as me not being an expert on SACD playback in 2 or multichannel format.If I'm hearing you guys right the multi-channel disks aren't even a given so now you're reduced to an even smaller segment of the incredible amount of music that is all available in Redbook.
The flip side though to your approach is that from the outset you deliberately compromised your multichannel playback by going with two separate systems and investing far more attention to one than the other. In my experience, the room acoustics are every bit as important as any component in an audio system, and with one unified system it's easier to focus on optimizing one room rather than trying it in multiple rooms. The approach I took to taming the acoustical issues in my room are every bit as beneficial in two-channel playback as with multichannel.
As far as what I'm comparing my SACD setup to, it's with other high end systems I've heard over the years. The higher resolution with SACD (or the remastering) already provides a notable improvement in sound quality, but the multichannel aspect simply renders a dimension of listening that is not possible no matter how good a CD setup you have. People will spend tens of thousands of dollars just to get that extra "airy" sensation and all-encompassing imaging from two-channel playback, yet a properly aligned multichannel setup of relatively moderate cost can render that sense of space and "air" far more convincingly. My system might not have the greater tonal coherency and overall balance that a high-end two-channel system has, but the multichannel playback indeed opens up areas of listening that two-channel is incapable of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I'm so old school I don't even like sub-woofers for 2 channel stereo use as even though I know they are unavoidable with small speakers I believe the sound should all come from 2 high quality speakers that are capable of handling the bass and treble equally well for optimum imaging.I realize bass is considered virtually non-directional but I like my 2 speakers to be the only thing making any noise as I don't want any rumbling bass going on during music playback.While that's a discussion for a different day I'm just using it to help explain how particular I am in regard to music playback.I wouldn't even consider speakers that made a subwoofer essential for good bass.I just want to add that there couldn't be a more subjective issue to discuss and I'm far from the most knowledgable Audiophile on this site.We're talking about 2 approaches to music that couldn't be any more different in theory or application.
Another incorrect assumption here -- people with multichannel systems do not all use small speakers, not do they all use subwoofers. With SACD playback, I can run all five of my speakers at full range (I've measured the in-room bass extension for all of my speakers below 40 Hz). With the playback in this direct mode, any signal content going to the subwoofer is there because the recording engineer intentionally mixed low frequency content into the LFE track, not because a crossover routed the signal into the subwoofer output.
But, with CDs I will use the subwoofer because I've taken the time to tune my sub to the room acoustics. Even with expensive high-end speakers running at full range, you're not immune to the room acoustical effects that cause huge peaks and dips in the lower bass. These effects are room induced and unavoidable without room treatments or equalization. By rerouting the bass content through the subwoofer, you have the option of equalizing just the low frequencies to even out the bass. It's not about "rumbling" it's about making the bass sound fuller and more even. If all you heard from a subwoofer was "rumbling" then it was set up incorrectly and/or had room-related problems that you did not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
The less is more principle is how purists approach 2 channel audio.This approach involves the least amount of speakers,the least playing with settings or calibrations or anything else that influences sound in any way.My Rotel RB-980BX 120W amp has an on/off switch.My Rotel RC-1090 pre-amp doesn't even have tone or balance controls as the theory is music should be played at a flat setting and eliminating these features reduces unwanted circuitry(that's Rotels theory and they make very nice components).
And yet even with all of this "purity" coming from the amp section, it all goes for naught once the sound goes into the air and starts interacting with the room. Every surface of a room has a sonic signature, every material has a different absorption coefficient at different frequencies. Obsessing about front end components and amplification, while ignoring the speakers and the room acoustics takes care of the least consequential variables without addressing the most important ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I'm not oblivious to some of the newer ways of playing back music but rather unsure if they have enough major sonic improvements over high quality 2 channel audio.If I did set-up my HT system to play back SACD's the problem is I would then want a state of the art A/V reciever,killer HT speakers,and an above average SACD player because I know I would not be happy with multi-channel audio sound from a marginal HT system after listening to my Redbook set-up.That an awfully big second investment to listen to a selection limited format.We couldn't disagree more on this subject so I suggest we basically just agree to disagree and I will respect your counterpoints as I would hope you respect my opinions as they are not just general statements but rather statements based on basic audio approach.Enjoy both your systems as the way you use your 2 systems for the 2 different formats is the correct way to accomplish your goal and I did respect that enough to specifically mention that in my previous thread. .
There are plenty of ways to set up a system that will work with both functions, IF you're willing to give them a try. SACD is not exclusively a multichannel format, all of the SACDs out there include a two-channel layer that very likely improves upon the original CD version. But, IMO the real extension of listening enjoyment indeed comes from listening to the multichannel tracks. As Feanor mentioned, even setting up his SACD player on his secondary system, he can hear a lot of facets to the music that aren't present in the two-channel playback.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
That is highly dependent on the receiver you're talking about, and which amp combo you're talking about. Another point that you've missed is that speakers are rarely driven with more than ONE watt of power to achieve normal listening levels in medium sized rooms. The amp load is highly dependent on the types of speakers that you select. You might question the "logic" of whether a receiver is putting out the same powered signal as a dedicated two-channel amp, but that argument's a non-starter because 1) the amp will rarely, if ever, be required to deliver at full wattage; and 2) a multichannel receiver does not play CDs with all channels driven, unless you want it to, in which case you're listening with a layer of signal processing that makes any comparison to two-channel irrelevant.
Again, you're making some presumptuous statements here, and equating cost with performance. The point that you miss here is that there are cost reductions associated with higher volumes. AV receivers are in much higher demand in the market right now. As such, they are produced in higher volumes than analog two-channel components, which lowers unit costs.
And how much power do "very good" speakers require? Are you listening at concert levels? Do you actually have experience with the midlevel receivers that are on the market right now? Unless you're trying to power inefficient low impedance speakers in a multichannel configuration, none of the models I'm familiar with have any limitations whatsoever with most of the speakers out there.
Again, you're using highly presumptuous language here regarding who has a "critical ear" and whether a $150 SACD player (which you have no experience with) will "more than suffice" for them. You can "beg to differ" with me all you want, but the difference is that I've actually listened to Sony's low end SACD players, as well as the Arcam CD72. I'm not saying that they're identical, but they're a lot closer than you give credit for. And I would question if anyone (including myself) can reliably differentiate between them if the listening took place under blind conditions. In blind listening tests I've done, many differences that I thought were "night and day" under sighted conditions turned out to be far less obvious when I was not told in advance what changes took place betwen listenings.
This point is entirely subjective. To me, it's worthwhile simply because I'd been wanting to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in their full multichannel DSD resolution. They sounded so good in two-channel that I was compelled to get a SACD player to hear them in multichannel, and that track did not disappoint. What I spent on my SACD player was about the same as the cost of the tickets to attend just one of those recorded concerts with my wife. If you want to see what discs are out there, go to www.sa-cd.net.
If you're using your HT system for movies, you still need to optimize the system. If you don't take the effort to optimize your multichannel experience, then of course you'll persistently come away with negative impressions. Things like level matching, timbre matching the speakers, optimizing the delay timing, properly setting up the bass management, etc. are highly consequential variables that you don't worry about with two-channel listening, but can make or break the imaging cues and tonal coherency with multichannel playback.
Of course there is a compromise if you're taking a set budget and listing out the components that can be purchased within that budget. But, I take a more linear view of putting together an audio system. As I've stated countless times on this board, you don't have to buy the entire system all at once. If you add the speakers gradually, rather than all at once, then costs are more incremental. My current system started entirely as a two-channel setup, and the speakers were gradually added as my budget allowed. The only difference is that at the outset I went with a multichannel receiver rather than a two-channel amp.
The flip side though to your approach is that from the outset you deliberately compromised your multichannel playback by going with two separate systems and investing far more attention to one than the other. In my experience, the room acoustics are every bit as important as any component in an audio system, and with one unified system it's easier to focus on optimizing one room rather than trying it in multiple rooms. The approach I took to taming the acoustical issues in my room are every bit as beneficial in two-channel playback as with multichannel.
As far as what I'm comparing my SACD setup to, it's with other high end systems I've heard over the years. The higher resolution with SACD (or the remastering) already provides a notable improvement in sound quality, but the multichannel aspect simply renders a dimension of listening that is not possible no matter how good a CD setup you have. People will spend tens of thousands of dollars just to get that extra "airy" sensation and all-encompassing imaging from two-channel playback, yet a properly aligned multichannel setup of relatively moderate cost can render that sense of space and "air" far more convincingly. My system might not have the greater tonal coherency and overall balance that a high-end two-channel system has, but the multichannel playback indeed opens up areas of listening that two-channel is incapable of.
Another incorrect assumption here -- people with multichannel systems do not all use small speakers, not do they all use subwoofers. With SACD playback, I can run all five of my speakers at full range (I've measured the in-room bass extension for all of my speakers below 40 Hz). With the playback in this direct mode, any signal content going to the subwoofer is there because the recording engineer intentionally mixed low frequency content into the LFE track, not because a crossover routed the signal into the subwoofer output.
But, with CDs I will use the subwoofer because I've taken the time to tune my sub to the room acoustics. Even with expensive high-end speakers running at full range, you're not immune to the room acoustical effects that cause huge peaks and dips in the lower bass. These effects are room induced and unavoidable without room treatments or equalization. By rerouting the bass content through the subwoofer, you have the option of equalizing just the low frequencies to even out the bass. It's not about "rumbling" it's about making the bass sound fuller and more even. If all you heard from a subwoofer was "rumbling" then it was set up incorrectly and/or had room-related problems that you did not correct.
And yet even with all of this "purity" coming from the amp section, it all goes for naught once the sound goes into the air and starts interacting with the room. Every surface of a room has a sonic signature, every material has a different absorption coefficient at different frequencies. Obsessing about front end components and amplification, while ignoring the speakers and the room acoustics takes care of the least consequential variables without addressing the most important ones.
There are plenty of ways to set up a system that will work with both functions, IF you're willing to give them a try. SACD is not exclusively a multichannel format, all of the SACDs out there include a two-channel layer that very likely improves upon the original CD version. But, IMO the real extension of listening enjoyment indeed comes from listening to the multichannel tracks. As Feanor mentioned, even setting up his SACD player on his secondary system, he can hear a lot of facets to the music that aren't present in the two-channel playback.
No sweat.I know you're into this hobby as much as I am by your spirited replies and this stuff is all so subjective anyway.My HT set-up just isn't good enough to give the multi-channel SACD's a fair shot as obviously some guys build their system based on HT and music playback.My HT set-up is barely adequate for HT DVD playback.When I can no longer tolerate the standard Sony in my Secondary stereo that feeds my garage and my backyard area I'll certainly consider spending a few extra bucks and trying out an entry level SACD player as that would probably still be a step-up from the standard Sony which is brutal.This system is just a basic set-up so probably no need to go crazy there.Are SACD's two sided disks that also play in Redbook CDP's or are they designed exclusively for playback in SACD players.I hope this format expands it's availibility for the guys that built their system specifically for this format(multichannel) as it would seem the record industry is on the fence regarding mass producing these things.I love older progressive rock like Rush,Yes,Genesis,ELP,etc. and I get the impression this niche isn't that available.Truce
-
You need to look up SACD and DVD-A and read abit as it sounds like your just not quite up to par on the discs.CDs,SACD,DVD-A,DTS,all different. They dont all take the same route from your player to your receiver either. CDs do one thing,the rest do more.
-
Considering that they are making machines now that support SACD for bottom prices it's a no-brainer in my opinion that everyone should be able to play and support the SACD format. I understand that not everyone wants to go out and buy the SACD titles and replace what they have. Anyway, I would not necessarily buy a new machine JUST for SACD playback, but a really good high-end machine or even some of the low end stuff it's almost standard.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
No sweat.I know you're into this hobby as much as I am by your spirited replies and this stuff is all so subjective anyway.My HT set-up just isn't good enough to give the multi-channel SACD's a fair shot as obviously some guys build their system based on HT and music playback.My HT set-up is barely adequate for HT DVD playback.When I can no longer tolerate the standard Sony in my Secondary stereo that feeds my garage and my backyard area I'll certainly consider spending a few extra bucks and trying out an entry level SACD player as that would probably still be a step-up from the standard Sony which is brutal.This system is just a basic set-up so probably no need to go crazy there.Are SACD's two sided disks that also play in Redbook CDP's or are they designed exclusively for playback in SACD players.I hope this format expands it's availibility for the guys that built their system specifically for this format(multichannel) as it would seem the record industry is on the fence regarding mass producing these things.I love older progressive rock like Rush,Yes,Genesis,ELP,etc. and I get the impression this niche isn't that available.Truce
You're in luck. The entire Genesis catalog is due out in 5.1 SACD starting in March. All of the tracks have been remixed from the original multitrack masters to create new 5.1 and two-channel tracks (this is a totally new mix, not just a remaster from the two-track mixdown with some different EQ or processor settings). Some of the two-channel remixes have already been released as part of the Genesis Platinum Collection CD set. The imaging is improved, with noticeably improved differentiation between the different sound elements and a lot more heft in the lower end, which remedies the somewhat tinny sound of many Genesis CD releases.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=11616317
Also, Rush is rumored to have turned all of their original multitrack masters over to a producer for 5.1 remixing. Alex Lifeson did the 5.1 remixing himself on the Rush: Replay concert DVD set. Even though they like the SACD format, the major labels have not been as supportive, so it remains to be seen if these 5.1 mixes will get a release. If any band needs fresh remixes of their albums, it's Rush. Their first CD releases sounded horrible, and the remasters still had problems. Problem might be that the original mixes were optimized for vinyl (where their LPs typically sound far superior to the CD versions), and need a lot of clean up work going all the way back to the source tracks before they can sound decent on CD.
ELP and Yes have also had several releases in DVD-A, which includes high res versions in both 5.1 and two-channel. DVD-A uses 192/24 PCM resolution for the two-channel tracks, and 96/24 resolution on the 5.1 tracks -- either way, much higher than the 44.1/16 resolution with CD audio.
Most of the SACD releases include a CD layer that's totally compatible with regular CD players. Even if you don't own a SACD player, these are often worth buying because the remaster can fix problems with earlier CD versions on a particular title. In addition, all SACDs include a two-channel track.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
I understand that not everyone wants to go out and buy the SACD titles and replace what they have..
I just want to direct that idea to people who are afraid......
If it's going to be worth paying, then......... why not? Seriously. I mean, wouldnt you buy it, because you already love the album? CDs can still be enjoyed tremendusly, even after playing some incredible SACDs. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC. Aint it?(strong posibility of moving to KY so....AINT IT?)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
You're in luck. The entire Genesis catalog is due out in 5.1 SACD starting in March. All of the tracks have been remixed from the original multitrack masters to create new 5.1 and two-channel tracks (this is a totally new mix, not just a remaster from the two-track mixdown with some different EQ or processor settings). Some of the two-channel remixes have already been released as part of the Genesis Platinum Collection CD set. The imaging is improved, with noticeably improved differentiation between the different sound elements and a lot more heft in the lower end, which remedies the somewhat tinny sound of many Genesis CD releases.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=11616317
Also, Rush is rumored to have turned all of their original multitrack masters over to a producer for 5.1 remixing. Alex Lifeson did the 5.1 remixing himself on the Rush: Replay concert DVD set. Even though they like the SACD format, the major labels have not been as supportive, so it remains to be seen if these 5.1 mixes will get a release. If any band needs fresh remixes of their albums, it's Rush. Their first CD releases sounded horrible, and the remasters still had problems. Problem might be that the original mixes were optimized for vinyl (where their LPs typically sound far superior to the CD versions), and need a lot of clean up work going all the way back to the source tracks before they can sound decent on CD.
ELP and Yes have also had several releases in DVD-A, which includes high res versions in both 5.1 and two-channel. DVD-A uses 192/24 PCM resolution for the two-channel tracks, and 96/24 resolution on the 5.1 tracks -- either way, much higher than the 44.1/16 resolution with CD audio.
Most of the SACD releases include a CD layer that's totally compatible with regular CD players. Even if you don't own a SACD player, these are often worth buying because the remaster can fix problems with earlier CD versions on a particular title. In addition, all SACDs include a two-channel track.
Very nice to hear about the availibility of some of my favorite stuff on SACD.The fact that it sounds like most of them play on regular CDP's makes them a much better bang for the buck as does the multi-channel SACD's also playing in 2 channel which would probably be my application.Still a tough decision because I own every album Genesis ever released on standard CD so it becomes a little less user-friendly if you're duplicating your collection.Of course I would start out by trying Disks I don't already own to increase the selection of my CD collection.A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.
-
It's entirely up to the record company. Some SACD's like the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd/DSOTM were priced reasonably (I.E. the same as CD's), some (like classical) are a dollar or two more expensive. The MoFi's are, of course, priced premiumly. You might have to shop around a bit more to get them on sale, since they are so hard to find -- that's what'll have the biggest effect on the "street" price of SACD's.
You really should try at least one that you're well familiar with, just so that you can go, "oh, wow, so that's the difference".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
You need to look up SACD and DVD-A and read abit as it sounds like your just not quite up to par on the discs.CDs,SACD,DVD-A,DTS,all different. They dont all take the same route from your player to your receiver either. CDs do one thing,the rest do more.
As I just said in my previous post I don't consider my HT set-up good enough for music playback.I'm much more into listening to music than watching movies on home theatre so I didn't put a lot of effort or money into setting up my HT equipment.I realize a better HT set-up would be much more suitable for Multi-channel SACD's but since I'm not a big HT guy it doesn't make sense for me to upgrade my whole HT set-up just for listening to the few Multi-channel SACD's I might buy.My DVD player actually is a DVD-A player from Toshiba so I'm familar with most of the DVD formats.just not so much with the SACD's to date and since I don't own any it's been a moot point.You guys have tweaked my interest in the SACD Format so I'll check a player out in the near future.God knows I don't need that much arm twisting to buy anything A/V related.You have to realize My 2-Channel stereo which only plays back Redbook CD's and is quite good is where most of my money has been spent as my entire CD collection is obviously Redbook only.
-
My advocacy of SACD
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
As I just said in my previous post I don't consider my HT set-up good enough for music playback.I'm much more into listening to music than watching movies on home theatre so I didn't put a lot of effort or money into setting up my HT equipment.I realize a better HT set-up would be much more suitable for Multi-channel SACD's but since I'm not a big HT guy it doesn't make sense for me to upgrade my whole HT set-up just for listening to the few Multi-channel SACD's I might buy.My DVD player actually is a DVD-A player from Toshiba so I'm familar with most of the DVD formats.just not so much with the SACD's to date and since I don't own any it's been a moot point.You guys have tweaked my interest in the SACD Format so I'll check a player out in the near future.God knows I don't need that much arm twisting to buy anything A/V related.You have to realize My 2-Channel stereo which only plays back Redbook CD's and is quite good is where most of my money has been spent as my entire CD collection is obviously Redbook only.
My advocacy of SACD is based on its multi-channel capability. So to be fair, I have to warn you that you might well prefer 2-channel RBCD from your expensive CDP over 2-channel SACD from an inexpensive universal player.
Lots of people claim they prefer the sound of 2-channel SACD over CD, but most often are comparing the different modes on the same player. For my, I don't really hear a significant difference even on the same player, viz. my Sony SCD-CE775. If you do a comparison, try a record that was mastered in DSD, not in PCM. This should ensure not only the best SACD sound, (argueably), but also the fairest comparison between the SACD and CD layers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.
It is a short answer as I wasn't comparing an A/V reciever to a traditional 2 channel stereo reciever.I was comparing it to a high quality amp/Pre-amp combo dedicated to stereo use only.You must at least know that a good quality Amp/Pre-amp set-up is superior to an A/V reciever to power 2-channel stereo regardless of whether you're playing 2 channel SACD's or Redbook CD's.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
My advocacy of SACD is based on its multi-channel capability. So to be fair, I have to warn you that you might well prefer 2-channel RBCD from your expensive CDP over 2-channel SACD from an inexpensive universal player.
Lots of people claim they prefer the sound of 2-channel SACD over CD, but most often are comparing the different modes on the same player. For my, I don't really hear a significant difference even on the same player, viz. my Sony SCD-CE775. If you do a comparison, try a record that was mastered in DSD, not in PCM. This should ensure not only the best SACD sound, (argueably), but also the fairest comparison between the SACD and CD layers.
Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
It is a short answer as I wasn't comparing an A/V reciever to a traditional 2 channel stereo reciever.I was comparing it to a high quality amp/Pre-amp combo dedicated to stereo use only.You must at least know that a good quality Amp/Pre-amp set-up is superior to an A/V reciever to power 2-channel stereo regardless of whether you're playing 2 channel SACD's or Redbook CD's.
The question wasnt at you,just a general question for whoever. BTW,i dont know that at all.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.
I have purchased new SACD's from Best Buy and local Music stores for anywhere between $9 to $25 with most being in the $12 to $18 range...
-
For comparisions
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.
If you're tempted to compare 2-ch SACD to CD as an experiment, I suggest you temporarily subsitute your new, SACD player for the Arcam in your main system. Then use the former to compare the 2-ch SACD layer and the CD layer of a DSD-mastered disc. You might well prefer your Arcam over either, but you will have a more valid comparison of SACD to CD. Possibly you will hear no significant difference, or you might argree the majority who feel SACD offers some improvement.
Then you might decide you'd like a really high quality SACD player. Personally I'd like a dCS Verdi Encore & Elgar Plus ...
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/index2.html
:thumbsup: :biggrin5:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Very nice to hear about the availibility of some of my favorite stuff on SACD.The fact that it sounds like most of them play on regular CDP's makes them a much better bang for the buck as does the multi-channel SACD's also playing in 2 channel which would probably be my application.Still a tough decision because I own every album Genesis ever released on standard CD so it becomes a little less user-friendly if you're duplicating your collection.Of course I would start out by trying Disks I don't already own to increase the selection of my CD collection.A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.
If those SACDs are released as hybrid discs, then they you can play them on your regular CD player. My experience with the early Genesis CD releases is that they were not good transfers, and from what I've heard on the Genesis Platinum Collection, the new remixes are a step up in sound quality. Even without a SACD player, the CD layers should at least include the remixed two-channel versions of their albums.
Like I said, this is not just a remaster where the engineer takes the same two-channel mixdown used on previous releases and just tweaks with the EQ and processor settings (this can improve the sound quality substantially if the original transfer was not done properly, but it does not fix issues with overprocessing and signal degradation during the analog mixdown). These new releases go all the way back to the original 8-, 16-, and 24-track masters, and fix any issues with the original mixdown, which was likely done using older analog recorders.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.
Have you actually tried that Sony CD player in your main system, and done the comparison under blind conditions? Otherwise, you have no idea if the "terrible" sound that you experience results from the "decent" receiver, the "nice" bookshelf speakers, or the "terrible" CD player.
Judging by the inherent preference you have toward your CD player, it looks like you absolutely have to do any critical listening under blind conditions. Otherwise, you're in no position to make even remotely objective observations if you're going into the listening with an anticipated outcome in mind. It's no different than when the late John Dunlavy conducted demos where he would pretend to switch out a cable and then observe people claiming to hear "night and day" differences in the sound when in fact nothing changed. They simply heard what they wanted to hear.
Satellite radio really rolls off the highs, and I believe that the signal gets downsampled to 32/16 resolution before getting compressed for broadcast. If you have any components in your setup that exaggerate the highs, you might prefer a source that deemphasizes the hghs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Have you actually tried that Sony CD player in your main system, and done the comparison under blind conditions? Otherwise, you have no idea if the "terrible" sound that you experience results from the "decent" receiver, the "nice" bookshelf speakers, or the "terrible" CD player.
Judging by the inherent preference you have toward your CD player, it looks like you absolutely have to do any critical listening under blind conditions. Otherwise, you're in no position to make even remotely objective observations if you're going into the listening with an anticipated outcome in mind. It's no different than when the late John Dunlavy conducted demos where he would pretend to switch out a cable and then observe people claiming to hear "night and day" differences in the sound when in fact nothing changed. They simply heard what they wanted to hear.
Satellite radio really rolls off the highs, and I believe that the signal gets downsampled to 32/16 resolution before getting compressed for broadcast. If you have any components in your setup that exaggerate the highs, you might prefer a source that deemphasizes the hghs.
I thought we had gotten past this nonsense over the CDP quality issue as I will try out an SACD player at some point.Why are you disputing my opinion of my own Sony CD player.I know junk when I hear it and the fact that Xm radio on the same system blows it away confirms it's junk.That player isn't even the SACD style player you love so much so why do you care that it's a $100 piece of junk.Now you are simply being contrary and argumentative to the point where I question your motives and your level of knowledge regarding Audio in general.You obviously love Sony,I obviously love my Arcam 192T.If it makes you feel better to think you can get a great CD player for $150 then just enjoy the thing and accept the fact that some people are willing to spend big money on equipment they think warrants it.You obviously aren't one of them.I don't need to mate the Sony to my stereo to determine whether or not it's any good.It's not and my high end stereo would sound horrific with this player in it.You need to spend some time in a high end audio store so you know what a good stereo sounds like.You're coming across as very inexperienced at this point by desparately defending cheap equipment that doesn't warrant all this attention.Your issues with expensive equipment must be based on not owning any so I say it is you who needs to rethink your opinions on audio.Of course you'll hammer back at all this with the little paragraphs picked out and debating my every point but you're wasting your time as I'm firmly convinced you are not a serious Audiophile.Audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about inferior equipment, they save up for better stuff themselves knowing it will be worth it in the end when their system sounds better.You throw around a lot of very technical terms like you just read them in a stereo magazine but this hobby isn't about technical mumbo-jumbo.I would love to know what you consider very good equipment as all you keep talking about is this Sony CDP.I started out with inexpensive equipment and was quite pleased with it as a starting point.When I developed a more critical ear and learned more and could afford it I gradually put together the fine system I now own.Do you own any very good equipment or do you just like to talk about this stuff as if you know the difference.At least I can honestly say that I have some good equipment that I spent a great deal of time researching and saving the money for and the results speak for themselves.Spare me your technical BS and tell me the names of some good pieces of equipment you would buy if you could. If you don't have a critical ear then of course this is all a moot point anyway.I've had many different levels of equipment so I know for a fact that better equipment does sounds better.Your last post has convinced me you actually are at the entry level of this hobby and haven't upgraded anything yet so when you talk about the lesser equipment sounding just as good you aren't talking from experience.If I'm wrong then educate me on some high end equipment and stop telling me how great the Sony CDP's are.And before you even waste your breath of course more expensive doesn't always equate to better sound.The equipment needs to be carefully selected and all mate well to get the right result, but spending some money isn't a bad way to get this process started.
-
...sounds of popcorn popping in the background, cracks open a beverage, waits for the show to start...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I thought we had gotten past this nonsense over the CDP quality issue as I will try out an SACD player at some point.Why are you disputing my opinion of my own Sony CD player.I know junk when I hear it and the fact that Xm radio on the same system blows it away confirms it's junk.That player isn't even the SACD style player you love so much so why do you care that it's a $100 piece of junk.Now you are simply being contrary and argumentative to the point where I question your motives and your level of knowledge regarding Audio in general.You obviously love Sony,I obviously love my Arcam 192T.
Getting awfully touchy over some simple questions, aren't we? A simple, "No, all of my listenings are done under sighted conditions" and/or "No, I've never tried my Arcam with my multichannel setup" and/or "No, I've never plugged my Sony CD player into my main system" would have sufficed!
For you to say that XM radio "blows away" the CD player is quite a bold statement considering how compressed and processed the XM transmission is (I get XM's feeds through Directv and the signals are very audibly degraded compared to the original CD). How do you know that it's not exaggerated highs in the speakers (very common with low end bookshelf speakers)? Or harshness with the receiver itself?
Maybe you should try an MP3 player for comparison, since the resolution of the XM signal is more akin to that format than the CD. Or perhaps you should try that XM tuner on your main system and see how it fares versus the Arcam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
If it makes you feel better to think you can get a great CD player for $150 then just enjoy the thing and accept the fact that some people are willing to spend big money on equipment they think warrants it.You obviously aren't one of them.
It's not about me "accepting" anything about how much you or anybody else chooses to spend on their audio system. I could care less about what others own, and what they think of my system. What I don't accept though are all of these presumptuous statements you make about components and formats that you have NO experience with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I don't need to mate the Sony to my stereo to determine whether or not it's any good.It's not and my high end stereo would sound horrific with this player in it.
If you haven't actually tried this, how would you know?
Like I said, you've already concluded that your receiver and your speakers are just swell. Yet, you have no idea if your Arcam would sound just as bad if it got patched into your HT system, or if that "horrific" Sony would sound better when plugged into your main system.
I'm simply asking the questions because it seems that you want to draw conclusions regardless of whether or not you have a basis for supporting those conclusions.
I bring up the issue of blind listenings because it's very obvious that you've got some ingrained biases that need to be controlled before you can objectively investigate anything for yourself. My statement about the Sony SACD player is simply that you might be surprised at how well it performs, since I've actually used that player as well as the Arcam CD72.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
You need to spend some time in a high end audio store so you know what a good stereo sounds like.You're coming across as very inexperienced at this point by desparately defending cheap equipment that doesn't warrant all this attention.
What makes you think that I have limited experience with high end audio? My opinions are bourne out of first-hand experience over the last 25+ years, which includes many hours spent listening to and tinkering with high end, midlevel, and entry level equipment alike. From having done blind listenings, to seeing first hand how easily influenced people can be when they know in advance which components they're listening to, there's plenty of smoke and mirrors out there. It's through this process of trying things out, and seeing what works and doesn't work, that I form my opinions.
If I'm so inexperienced, then how would I be able to work on room acoustical corrections or multichannel speaker alignment or azimuth alignment on tape players or VTA adjustments on turntables or PCM downsampling or pulling down the media tag information from DVDs or using parametric equalization or conducting frequency and time domain response measurements with my systems? Judging by your comments on this thread, you haven't tried any of this with your own system.
And if all else fails, I still have my ears and experience with live music.
Your defensiveness about the price tags of components indicates to me that you've accepted the industry's marketing claims at face value, and chosen not to take a more objective and investigative approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
You throw around a lot of very technical terms like you just read them in a stereo magazine but this hobby isn't about technical mumbo-jumbo.I would love to know what you consider very good equipment as all you keep talking about is this Sony CDP.
Nope, magazines like Stereophile generally don't get into practical issues dealing with room acoustics and system calibration. They're trying to sell you stuff, and you're obviously buying.
Things I learned in this hobby have come from a combination of listening AND learning.
The technical side of the hobby is every bit as important as the subjective side that you're so enamored with. You have to know what you're hearing and why before you can conclusively say what will improve upon what you hear.
As for why I'm talking about the Sony SACD player, when was the last time you checked the title of this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Spare me your technical BS and tell me the names of some good pieces of equipment you would buy if you could. If you don't have a critical ear then of course this is all a moot point anyway.
Other people on this board introduced me to the concepts regarding room acoustics. They challenged me to investigate things further. I took them up on the challenge, and the results spoke for themselves. If you think that's "technical BS" then it's no wonder your knowledge of subwoofers is limited to the "rumbling" that you observe.
And the insults about my so-called "critical ear" are a typical response from someone who lacks the experience to take issue with any of the technical points.
Asking someone to name equipment they would buy is yet another tactic to try and divert the topic away from issues that they cannot respond to. I'm simply asking if you've ever actually investigated YOUR OWN equipment! And the answer's obviously no. What I would buy is totally inconsequential to this basic point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Your issues with expensive equipment must be based on not owning any so I say it is you who needs to rethink your opinions on audio.Of course you'll hammer back at all this with the little paragraphs picked out and debating my every point but you're wasting your time as I'm firmly convinced you are not a serious Audiophile.Audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about inferior equipment, they save up for better stuff themselves knowing it will be worth it in the end when their system sounds better.And before you even waste your breath of course more expensive doesn't always equate to better sound.The equipment needs to be carefully selected and all mate well to get the right result, but spending some money isn't a bad way to get this process started.
Right, because I don't automatically assume that every sound quality improvement requires new component purchases, that makes me a facetious rather than a "serious" audiophile! :cornut: Being a "serious" audiophile I would think entails a lot more than just sitting in an audio salon and having a pow-wow with the sales reps about which $500 cable they want to sell you, or spending an afternoon swapping out components in a demo room.
Taking the time and effort to systematically identify what actually makes a significant difference versus what costs a lot of money for subtle improvement I would think is a "serious" enough endeavor for an audiophile. And my general take on audio entails focusing on optimally setting up what someone already owns and fixing problems with the room acoustics (which in my experience has a much bigger effect on sound quality than which CD player or amplifier you own) before perpetuating a cycle of component upgrades. It's a low cost approach, but it works very well and keeps the priorities straight. If that makes for a less-than-"serious" audiophile in your view, then so be it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
...sounds of popcorn popping in the background, cracks open a beverage, waits for the show to start...
Ah, so you've also seen this show before, eh? :6:
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Getting awfully touchy over some simple questions, aren't we? A simple, "No, all of my listenings are done under sighted conditions" and/or "No, I've never tried my Arcam with my multichannel setup" and/or "No, I've never plugged my Sony CD player into my main system" would have sufficed!
For you to say that XM radio "blows away" the CD player is quite a bold statement considering how compressed and processed the XM transmission is (I get XM's feeds through Directv and the signals are very audibly degraded compared to the original CD). Maybe you should try an MP3 player for comparison, since the resolution of the XM signal is more akin to that format than the CD. Or perhaps you should try that XM tuner on your main system and see how it fares versus the Arcam.
It's not about me "accepting" anything about how much you or anybody else chooses to spend on their audio system. I could care less about what others own, and what they think of my system. What I don't accept though are all of these presumptuous statements you make about components and formats that you have NO experience with.
If you haven't actually tried this, how would you know?
Like I said, you've already concluded that your receiver and your speakers are just swell. Yet, you have no idea if your Arcam would sound just as bad if it got patched into your HT system, or if that "horrific" Sony would sound better when plugged into your main system.
I'm simply asking the questions because it seems that you want to draw conclusions regardless of whether or not you have a basis for supporting those conclusions.
I bring up the issue of blind listenings because it's very obvious that you've got some ingrained biases that need to be controlled before you can objectively investigate anything for yourself. My statement about the Sony SACD player is simply that you might be surprised at how well it performs, since I've actually used that player as well as the Arcam CD72.
What makes you think that I have limited experience with high end audio? My opinions are bourne out of first-hand experience over the last 25+ years, which includes many hours spent listening to and tinkering with high end, midlevel, and entry level equipment alike. From having done blind listenings, to seeing first hand how easily influenced people can be when they know in advance which components they're listening to, there's plenty of smoke and mirrors out there. It's through this process of trying things out, and seeing what works and doesn't work, that I form my opinions.
If I'm so inexperienced, then how would I be able to work on room acoustical corrections or multichannel speaker alignment or azimuth alignment on tape players or VTA adjustments on turntables or PCM downsampling or pulling down the media tag information from DVDs or using parametric equalization or conducting frequency and time domain response measurements with my systems? Judging by your comments on this thread, you haven't tried any of this with your own system.
And if all else fails, I still have my ears and experience with live music.
Your defensiveness about the price tags of components indicates to me that you've accepted the industry's marketing claims at face value, and chosen not to take a more objective and investigative approach.
Nope, magazines like Stereophile generally don't get into practical issues dealing with room acoustics and system calibration. They're trying to sell you stuff.
Things I learned in this hobby have come from a combination of listening AND learning.
The technical side of the hobby is every bit as important as the subjective side that you're so enamored with. You have to know what you're hearing and why before you can conclusively say what will improve upon what you hear.
Other people on this board introduced me to the concepts regarding room acoustics. They challenged me to investigate things further. I took them up on the challenge, and the results spoke for themselves. If you think that's "technical BS" then it's no wonder your knowledge of subwoofers is limited to the "rumbling" that you observe.
And the insults about my so-called "critical ear" are a typical response from someone who lacks the experience to take issue with any of the technical points.
Right, because I don't automatically assume that every sound quality improvement requires new component purchases, that makes me a facetious rather than a "serious" audiophile! :cornut: Being a "serious" audiophile I would think entails a lot more than just sitting in an audio salon and having a pow-wow with the sales reps about which $500 cable they want to sell you, or spending an afternoon swapping out components in a demo room.
Taking the time and effort to systematically identify what actually makes a significant difference versus what costs a lot of money for subtle improvement I would think is a "serious" enough endeavor for an audiophile. And my general take on audio entails focusing on optimally setting up what someone already owns and fixing problems with the room acoustics (which in my experience has a much bigger effect on sound quality than which CD player or amplifier you own) before perpetuating a cycle of component upgrades. It's a low cost approach, but it works very well and keeps the priorities straight. If that makes for a less-than-"serious" audiophile in your view, then so be it.
You still haven't mentioned a single piece of equipment other than this Sony SACD player.My reciever isn't a reciever at all but rather a Rotel Amp and Pre-amp which you would have figured out if you were paying attention.Mention some very good Audio companies and the things about their products you liked and then I will be convinced you know the difference between entry level equipment and upgraded equipment.If you've been at this game for 25 years and are still waiting to upgrade so you don't make a foolish or un-necessary upgrade then I'm the Pope.Stop embarrasing yourself with all this techno-babble and lets hear what high end equipment you're familar with or have listened to and what you thought of it and why.You should have figured out by now that I've done my homework and actually know what good equipment is.I'd quit while you're behind and by the way there is no more accurate way to test a source than by switching between them on the same system.If I turn on my Sony CD player in my garage stereo and listen to it and then hit the input for the XM AUX input selector and the XM sounds better than I know the Sony bites.A satellite transmission should never sound better than a hard wired digital device.You really should find someone with less experience with this to debate with.Get back to me quick on the high end equipment because I don't want you to have time to look up some really good companies,research their specs and then spit the information back at me or tell me what someone else actually said about them..I'd like to know what high end companies you like and why.I think that is a simple and fair way to tell what you've heard before and what about it made you think that you don't need to cough up some serious coin to get a killer stereo.I could fill pages and pages with the technical highlights of my 2 channel audio system but I really thought that would be quite boorish and felt that simply saying I have very good equipment would suffice.No more stuff about bit rates,DAC's,frequencies,etc. as that stuff can all be researched online without auditioning or owning the actual equipment.Tell me something about a high end CD player model you've listened to and why you came away thinking that it didn't sound better than your $150 Sony.You could also mention what pre-amp,amp and speakers were used with it if you want.Lets leave recievers out of this because no-one in there right mind can tell me a reciever will sound as good as separates unless they don't want to spend the extra money on dedicated pieces and have to convince themselves a reciever is just as good and not just easier on the pocketbook.There's no doubt you can overpay for poorly selected components or just the wrong mix of equipment but to think you can achieve great things with your system without even taking that chance is just fooling yourself based on budget issues that have tied your hands.You can pick on an Arcam model if you want as that is what I have and it could make up for me picking on your Sony.I honestly don't mind and I figure it's more tactful than actually asking you what your 2-channel stereo consists of because you'd only tell me that it's awesome and you didn't have to overpay for it like I did when I bought my equipment.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
You still haven't mentioned a single piece of equipment other than this Sony SACD player.My reciever isn't a reciever at all but rather a Rotel Amp and Pre-amp which you would have figured out if you were paying attention.Mention some very good Audio companies and the things about their products you liked and then I will be convinced you know the difference between entry level equipment and upgraded equipment.If you've been at this game for 25 years and are still waiting to upgrade so you don't make a foolish or un-necessary upgrade then I'm the Pope.Stop embarrasing yourself with all this techno-babble and lets hear what high end equipment you're familar with or have listened to and what you thought of it and why.You should have figured out by now that I've done my homework and actually know what good equipment is.I'd quit while you're behind and by the way there is no more accurate way to test a source than by switching between them on the same system.If I turn on my Sony CD player in my garage stereo and listen to it and then hit the input for the XM AUX input selector and the XM sounds better than I know the Sony bites.A satellite transmission should never sound better than a hard wired digital device.You really should find someone with less experience with this to debate with.Get back to me quick on the high end equipment because I don't want you to have time to look up some really good companies,research their specs and then spit the information back at me or tell me what someone else actually said about them..I'd like to know what high end companies you like and why.I think that is a simple and fair way to tell what you've heard before and what about it made you think that you don't need to cough up some serious coin to get a killer stereo.No more stuff about bit rates,DAC's,frequencies,etc. as that stuff can all be researched online without auditioning or owning the actual equipment.Tell me something about a high end CD player model you've listened to and why you came away thinking that it didn't sound better than your $150 Sony.You can pick on an Arcam model if you want as that is what I have and it could make up for me picking on your Sony.
Frankly, you're out of your league with this argument by trying to badger me on what I've actually heard over the years.
Just for starters, friends of mine used to work at high end audio stores, so not only have I heard components such as the Infinity IRS (both the reference system and the smaller "consumer-class" systems), the Apogee Duetta and Full Range, Krell and Audio Research's top-of-the-line monoblock amps, the Carver Amazings, and the Klipsch K-horn, but we've actually tinkered with them, measured them, and tried them outside of the demo rooms. CD players I've heard include (aside from Sony's top-of-the-line ES models and the Arcams), models from Meridian, Carver (their tube-hybrid models), Theta, Classe, and Musical Fidelity, among others. Amps would include tube, hybrid, SS, and digital amps from SAE, Carver, Conrad Johnson, Bryston, Adcom, Classe, Parasound, McIntosh, Theta, Audio Research, among others. Speakers would include the Dynaudio Evidence Master, and various models from Vandersteen, Dunlavy, KEF, Energy, Mission, B&W, Paradigm, Magnepan, BSR, Quad, Acoustat, Martin Logan, Innersound, among MANY others. And this does not include the "mass market" brands that I've tried over the years, or DIY mods that my friends built.
This is the reference point that I'm starting from. If it's not good enough for you, then you're obviously breathing a more rarified air than us mere mortals on the ground. But, unlike your approach, I don't just stop at demo room listening and component swap outs. I try to actually learn more from the listenings than simply what component brands are out there. I want to learn how to optimize my setup, how the room interactions affect what I hear, etc. That's the technical side, and learning about those concepts have had every bit as fruitful a practical application as comparison listenings. Your hissy fit about "technical BS" just demonstrates to me that you're not open to the possibility that putting your beliefs about audio to the test might actually prove something to the contrary, or at least call a lot of things into question.
Why not hook that Arcam up to your HT system or your Sony up to your main system, and do an objective A/B comparison with some bias control in place? (A blind comparison only requires someone at the other end switching between the components without you knowing which one you're listening to) Are you afraid that your "horrific" CD player might not be so "horrific" on your main system, or that the Arcam might not be a world beater when hooked up to your HT system?
I've been in your position before. Thought I knew it all just because I heard a bunch of high end components in the store. But, then my friends and I decided to try the A/B comparisons under blind conditions, and suddenly all of those "night and day" differences that we observed suddenly narrowed or disappeared altogether.
It's obvious at this point that you're not even reading my responses and trying to impugn that I would glean some satisfaction by "picking" on Arcam because it's what you own. Weren't you the one that said audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about their equipment? Geez, it's not even like I've said anything negative about Arcam.
Nothing personal, but if you actually read what I'm suggesting without getting all wound up and defensive, you might actually learn something. For starters, it's clear that you don't know much about room acoustics. Look up some previous theads on this topic if you want to know more about the biggest improvement you can make to your system.
|