Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78
  1. #1
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176

    All transports are NOT the same

    I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

    Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had. Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports.

    His evidence would be his word in this? Anything else? Perhaps he has an interest in telling you this silliness?

    He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

    See under level matched, DBT listeing? Did he offer any evidence?

    Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had.

    Yep, that is the initial supposition but evidence is more powerful.

    Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.

    That is understandible. Thinking is not evidence, again.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport."

    Why? A jukebox is nothing more than a single disc transport with another machine to select which of the discs in its magazine will be played one at a time.

    While it is true that the degree of rotational speed variation from ideal which we used to call wow and flutter but in a digital age we call jitter can vary, ALL of them are much worse than is needed for reproduction of audio or video signals. How is this overcome? By reclocking. The pulses for each data point must enter each cell of a buffer register within a certain time interval. When the register dumps each cell, its data is reclocked to conform to the timing of a quartz oscillator which is rock steady. If it fails to happen, the entire process breaks down and you won't get any music or picture at all. Therefore, reducing digital jitter in the transport doesn't result in a better digital data stream. This is one of the great advantages of the digital system of storage and retrieval of analog signals. It doesn't depend for quality on a super precision transport unit to play it back, it's independent of it as long as it meets the minimum requirements necessary for it to function at all. Your misconception is all based on the myth implied by many manufacturers that if you optimize every conceivable element in a system, each one will contribute to superior performance. Some elements are less important and some merely have to be present in any working form.

  4. #4
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The best thing to do is go and listen - I compared a 300 disc Pioneer Elite changer versus a super expensive Wadia and Enlightend Audio Designs transport through a Cal Labs DAC and high end Bryston monoblocks and Martin Logan speakers. No one heard a difference even sighted. The dealer himself dumped the transport for the changer. The Dac was another matter.

    There may be a difference - but I would rather spend it on speakers room treatments etc.

    I run a changer and a dedicated single disc player - the Cambridge is probably better - but given the price - if I ad to do it over again I would take the Sony 300 disc player - and buy a second and third one instead of the CD-6.

    And hey the 300 disc player does have a digital output if you really want an external DAC - and best of all you can always take an external DAC home to try out before you buy.

  5. #5
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    In my searches...

    ...I have found that most, if not all CDPs, use either Sony or Philips transports as the basis for their units...any difference in the transports seems to be mechanical in nature...the long service life for a pro unit requires things like metal parts, glass lenses, that sort of thing...regardless of all the tomfoolery, a zero is a zero and a one is a one. It seems that when you get into the DACs is when the specific "sonic signatures" are futzed with...

    As I recall there was a recent thread re: a German piece of "sonic artwork" which used the same transport as a very less(make that very, very, very less)expensive Marantz unit...limited production etc., the machined housing and laser-cut faceplate of the former, contributed to it's price and, as it always seems, that price was equated to by some, to be what elevated it to the "best"...what ever that means. As I recall the DAC had "timbral adjustments" or some other less-scary-to-the golden-eared euphemism for tone controls.

    jimHJJ(...and solder is solder, and wire is wire, and the green grass grew all around...)

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC.
    Just because someone has a job with a "high-end" company does not mean that they are actually knowledgeable. In this case, the factory technician is talking directly out of his a** - just like Jim Carrey did in his film "Ace Ventura - Pet Detective". It's absolute, total BullSh!t. Skeptic spelled it all out in his reply here ... he is 100% correct.

    Some day I will get energetic and see.
    I certainly hope so. Then, you can cease and desist posting this sort of audiophoolery.
    woodman

    I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
    Steven Wright

  7. #7
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Therefore, reducing digital jitter in the transport doesn't result in a better digital data stream. This is one of the great advantages of the digital system of storage and retrieval of analog signals. It doesn't depend for quality on a super precision transport unit to play it back, it's independent of it as long as it meets the minimum requirements necessary for it to function at all.
    Great theory as usual. It's a shame the theory doesn't work that way in the real world. Ever burn your own CDs? I've done hundreds. With data disks, I rarely have experienced any trouble using several different burners. Burning music disks, however, is a different matter. Doesn't matter whether I burn WAVs or MP3s. Even with my pretty fast 2.2 Ghz P4, I must slow down the burn from 32x down to 4x to prevent horribly obvious clicking and other timing artifacts.

    rw

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    And how do you account for the fact that you don't get these errors burning data cds but you get them with audio cds?

    Ever consider that your A/D converter may not be quite up to the higher speed? This is the most likely cause of your problem. And it may be due to power supply voltage fluctuations, not the A/D chip itself. Blaming the cd transport is the last place to look for the answer not the first because on playback, either the PLL locks or it doesn't. If loss of lock were due to jitter, the problem would be constant with the artifacts occurring all of the time. This is the only conceivable marginal situation and would indicate that the entire cd recording process was on the verge of complete breakdown. There are no halfway situations like there are in analog systems. The naive one time use of green felt tip pens and plastic rings on the outer rims of discs which audiophiles swore made a drastic improvement in sound, shows that many of them have only a rudimentary understanding of the radical difference between digital and analog systems. The belief in more expensive precision transports is simply a way for manufacturers to exploit exactly this same widely held misconception that steadier rotation will somehow improve the ultimate sound. It just can't because the process doesn't work that way. The jitter was anticipated and compensation for it is built right into the process or the buffer registers wouldn't have been necessary. If you want an indication of how really effective they are, consider a portable unit which has to absorb enormous jarring and yet still usually maintains a steady audio output.

  9. #9
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    And how do you account for the fact that you don't get these errors burning data cds but you get them with audio cds?
    Think about the fundamental difference. A data file really doesn't care about the speed or pace at which it arrives because it is not acted upon until the file has been entirely transferred. This is true for executables, image files, word processing files, etc. That is in stark contrast to the continuous nature of a wav based audio stream getting transferred.

    rw

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

    Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had. Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.
    The technician is right that there may be differences in jitter, which is due to clock errors in the player. OK, but the real issue is: does it make a difference we can hear?
    Jitter errors will show up in standard THD measurements (I have previously published a reference for this but find it yourself in The Audio Critic or online). Almost all CD players (I am aware of --to please certain readers) have distortion measurements below the ability of humans to distinguish. So, if you are worried about jitter or the quality of the playback of your transport, just check its distortion specs or measurements. Jitter is one in a long line of high end "concerns" that are mere smoke to sell magazine and let English and journalism majors pretend they are technical. Bottom line is that there is no logical scientific reason to think there are audible differences in transports and when people have been tested they can't tell them apart. Of course, that is to my knowledge and perhaps Superman can detect audible differences in CD transports--but he hasn't been tested yet. "Listening" for differences is folly, you are much more likely to hear differences due to level mismatches or your biases.

    Perhaps "factory technicians" of high end stuff are not the best source for reasonable information. Why not ask a designer (EE) of a reasonably priced product?

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    It is entirely likely that cd players do not all sound alike. That is my experience and that of many other people as well. But these differences IMO have nothing to do with the transports. Early 16 and 18 bit D/A converters in the early to mid 80s were usually awful. But in the last 15 year or so with 20 and 1 bit converters, the only discernable differences are usually do to minor differences in analog frequency response. Therefore they are insignificant and of no consequence to anyone smart enough to use a graphic equalizer to achieve optimal tonal balance.

  12. #12
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It is entirely likely that cd players do not all sound alike. That is my experience and that of many other people as well.
    D'ya think?


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    But these differences IMO have nothing to do with the transports.
    My experience suggests otherwise. BTW, with regard to your last post, the quality of the DAC in my computer with burning CDs is completely irrelevant because it is not used at all by the software. Time for a new theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    But in the last 15 year or so with 20 and 1 bit converters, the only discernable differences are usually do to minor differences in analog frequency response.
    Do you really believe is no audible difference whatsoever between the necessary analog circuitry between an $.80 op amp and a discrete stage using the finest components?

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-03-2004 at 02:39 PM.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162

    Price Experience

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    D'ya think?

    Do you really believe is no audible difference whatsoever between the necessary analog circuitry between an $.80 op amp and a discrete stage using the finest components?

    rw
    The cost of a chip (or a section) is probably correlated to performance, so your inferrence is not totally off the wall, but the fact that you want to talk about price instead of performance does illustrate where you are coming from.

    Why assume that there is an AUDIBLE difference between an opamp chip and a discrete stage based on price or cost? Why don't we just measure and see which has the better electrical performance? Armed with this information we can then make a better guess as to possible audible differences (with a much better chance of being right). Of course, even the cheap opamps sometimes outperform "high-end" tweako discrete designs (in terms of measured performance). And, of course, the performance of even very cheap opamps is these days almost always below audible thresholds. Pehaps that is why people can't tell them apart in listening tests (duh)?

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Excellent point. The price of semiconductor chips is almost always inversely proportional to the number produced up to a point. This is because once the development and tooling cost are amortized, the production cost per unit is almost zero. Op amps find their way into so many different applicatons and have been under development for so long that it would be surprising if there aren't many which can perform the function of signal level audio amplification just about perfectly for next to nothing.

  15. #15
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Why assume that there is an AUDIBLE difference between an opamp chip and a discrete stage based on price or cost?
    Because there are a sum total of zero state-of-the-art preamps that are chip based.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Of course, even the cheap opamps sometimes outperform "high-end" tweako discrete designs (in terms of measured performance).
    Which shows you how totally useless such measurements are. The absolutely dreadful Crown IC-150 preamp had GREAT specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    And, of course, the performance of even very cheap opamps is these days almost always below audible thresholds.
    On what, test tones? LOL.

    rw

  16. #16
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Opamps

    Since I have gone through 3 sets of opamps in my mod upgrade path here is the difference:

    Stock, cheap opamps like OPA2134PA and the cheaper units used in mass market stuff (.80 cents) are slower, less detailed, and produce a soundstage that is more recessed, and dull. when you move up to the OPA2604PA, you are starting to get serious performance, and away from the mass-fi sound, and opacity. This opamp breathes life into a system.

    Moving to a superb opamp like the $4.00 BB AD826, the soundstage cleans up dramatically. The image is pushed out and around the speakers, and there is much improved detail. The percieved/audible speed is better, because electrically, it is.

    The 826 is such that it is a leap, not a step, but a leap from the cheaper opamps.

    There is an obvious difference in the quality of parts used.
    Last edited by Sealed; 08-07-2004 at 05:25 AM.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Which shows you how totally useless such measurements are. The absolutely dreadful Crown IC-150 preamp had GREAT specs."

    The op amp used in the Crown IC 150 was developed more than a decade before the world's first microprocessor, the ancient Intel 8086. Wouldn't it have been remarkable if progress in op amp design hadn't in any way kept pace with the advances in other semiconductors? The last 35 years has seen as great or greater advance in electronics than any other comparable 35 year period. About the only thing that hasn't advanced very far in that time has been vacuum tubes and vacuum tube circuit designs. For the most part, that has been the only really stagnant area of electronics I can think of. In fact the only thing not stagnant has been the price which continues to escalate into the rediculous while the cost of most other electronics is constantly going down.

    There is a limit to the perfection of the purely electronic function signal amplification can reach. As it approaches that limit, the only real advances will be in cost reduction.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Prices

    "In fact the only thing not stagnant has been the price which continues to escalate into the rediculous while the cost of most other electronics is constantly going down."

    Fuel for that bonfire:

    A lot of tube gear is SET or minimalist, which also means LESS parts. Simpler circuits. Yet rising prices.

  19. #19
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The op amp used in the Crown IC 150 was developed more than a decade before the world's first microprocessor, the ancient Intel 8086.
    As was the methodology for the largely irrelevant measurements on which the Robot most likely based his "outperforms" comment. Unlike chips, however, they have not improved to the point where there is direct correlation to components that measure and sound good. In fact, most of the newer, better sounding op amp designs have poorer specs than the lowly Fairchild 70's chip.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    About the only thing that hasn't advanced very far in that time has been vacuum tubes and vacuum tube circuit designs.
    While the tubes haven't progressed, the end result of using better components, auto-biasing circuits, and ultra rigid power supplies has advanced the audible result.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    There is a limit to the perfection of the purely electronic function signal amplification can reach. As it approaches that limit, the only real advances will be in cost reduction.
    Fine and dandy, but we haven't approached perfection yet.

    rw

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    As was the methodology for the largely irrelevant measurements on which the Robot most likely based his "outperforms" comment. Unlike chips, however, they have not improved to the point where there is direct correlation to components that measure and sound good. In fact, most of the newer, better sounding op amp designs have poorer specs than the lowly Fairchild 70's chip.

    rw

    Get a clue. "State of the art" is a marketing label. Of course those amps don't use opamp chips, the company is trying to sell to high-end cultists who simply believe (like you do) that discrete is better. (Besiders their "designers" can monkey with discrete componets, they can't very well muck up the innards of the chip.

    I challenge you to tell use what measurement are not irrelavant. You need to talk to real engineers who perhaps can explain to you how there isn't anything else that matters in an electircal signal than distortiont (it is all that matters because it is all that there is that is not in the input signal.)

    Perhaps this person will be really great teacher and point out that all audio/electrical signals are merely combinations of simple sine waves. (This is basic physics, you might want to look into it.) Perhaps this expert can also make you understand that humans can detect distortion better in signals that are pure tones rather than in music.

    I don't want to laugh out loud at your comments, because, they do indicate a lack of understanding of the basics. I have tried to get you to see this, but it doesn't seem to be working. You cannot just read Stereophile, talk to some audio salon salesmen, and think you have it all figured out. Some work and study really is required. I think you could do it if you try.

    Of couse you can show that I am a misguided moron if you simply tell us what measured performance factors are not irrelavant in judging amp performance. What are they?

  21. #21
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Get a clue.
    It is you who speaks entirely from conjecture. I base my comments upon direct experience. Maybe one of these days when you grow up, you may get a chance to do more than speculate upon that which you have no idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Of course those amps don't use opamp chips, the company is trying to sell to high-end cultists who simply believe (like you do) that discrete is better.
    I'm continually amused by you conspiracy theorists ! While there may well be a company or two out there governed by such shallow guidelines, there are quite a few pioneering firms that have continually advanced the audio performance envelope over decades of experience. They build components on that which they find works best. Period. I don't doubt that at some date in the future, the op amps will eventually catch up. We ain't there yet, Robot.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    I challenge you to tell use what measurement are not irrelavant. You need to talk to real engineers who perhaps can explain to you how there isn't anything else that matters in an electircal signal than distortiont (it is all that matters because it is all that there is that is not in the input signal.)
    I had to read you comments a couple times to get past your double negative. THD for starters. It is based upon an average of readings using steady state test tones. Instantaneous distortion is masked. In case you don't understand otherwise, music is a wee bit more complex than steady state tones. The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID. That is why high frequency reproduction with that turkey sounds like fingernails on a chaulkboard. Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.


    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    You cannot just read Stereophile, talk to some audio salon salesmen, and think you have it all figured out. Some work and study really is required. I think you could do it if you try.
    You know nothing of my experience. I haven't been to an audio salon in years. I base my comments on direct experience to some very nice equipment. If you want to pick on a magazine and it's staff, then you will need to pick on The Absolute Sound. I have known John Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. You really have no idea what HP's current system sounds like vs. live music. Which is the way of engineers who spout theory with zero actual exposure about the components to which I refer.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Of couse you can show that I am a misguided moron if you simply tell us what measured performance factors are not irrelavant in judging amp performance. What are they?
    I already gave you one irrelevant one. It's your turn to come up with one that does correlate to real world musical reproduction.

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-07-2004 at 10:29 AM.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162

    How to ID a high-end fanatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed
    Since I have gone through 3 sets of opamps in my mod upgrade path here is the difference:

    Stock, cheap opamps like OPA2134PA and the cheaper units used in mass market stuff (.80 cents) are slower, less detailed, and produce a soundstage that is more recessed, and dull. when you move up to the OPA2604PA, you are starting to get serious performance, and away from the mass-fi sound, and opacity. This opamp breathes life into a system.

    Moving to a superb opamp like the $4.00 BB AD826, the soundstage cleans up dramatically. The image is pushed out and around the speakers, and there is much improved detail. The percieved/audible speed is better, because electrically, it is.

    There is an obvious difference in the quality of parts used.

    If you are new to the world of home audio, here is how to tell you are being misled by a highender in regard to amps:

    1) They mention the word "detailed". This is a fairly meainingless which could relate to accuracy, but implies that they can hear more. Remember this: amps to not create sounds, (if you're lucky)--they deal strictly with electrical signals. The distortion of a signal is the difference between the input and the output. Low distortion means the output signal is virtually the same as the input. No "detail" is involved.

    2) They mention the words "slow" or "fast". My amp cannot move, it is stationary. What could they mean? The rate at which the amp can change its output level? That's slew rate, it is more than adequte for most home amps. (Do you doubt you amp can respond faster that the orchestra?) My amp can respond to 20 KHz signal ( more like 100 KHz)--which moves its output up and down 20,000 times a second. Pretty fast! The use of speed words in talking about an amp is indicative of high-end muddled thinking. Run for the hills when you hear it!

    3) When they talk aboout soundstage in regard to an amp. This is mind numbing. You get your 3D cues by slight sound time delays and volume levels between the two speakers. The response and location of you speakers' greatly affect the 3D effect (in addition to your room.) Your amp can't effect sound stage unless it is messing up the two channels with time or level imbalances. All properly perfoming amps don't do that. Duh! I have heard scads of amps and speakers, amps don't affect soundstage (they can't), speakers do.

    4) When they talk "mass market" and make statements like "breathing life" into your system it should be clear that they are coming from a high-end, irrational perspective. You can't blame them, this stuff is all over the subjectivist magizines. So, hey, they read it in a mag, so it must be true. Darn if they can't begin to hear it in their overly expensive electronics.

    If you made it to this response, you have heard that nobody (I have heard of in over 20 years in home audio) has demontrated that they can tell amps apart (note that not everyone has been tested). If that seems problematical to you in light of comments made about the clear differences in speed, detail, soundstange, and life in your amp, then proceed to ignore such statements. Join the rational audio club, you will save money and get BETTER sound.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    It is you who speaks entirely from conjecture. I base my comments upon direct experience.

    THD for starters. It is based upon an average of readings using steady state test tones. Instantaneous distortion is masked. In case you don't understand otherwise, music is a wee bit more complex than steady state tones. The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID. That is why high frequency reproduction with that turkey sounds like fingernails on a chaulkboard. Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.

    WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT SUCH THINGS? TEST TONES ARE NOT "STEADY STATE" BUT ARE CONTINUOUSLY VARYING (AT UP TO 20 KHZ). DUH! YOU ARE MAKING UP PHRASES (ACTUALLY BORROWING THEM FROM NON-TECHNICAL MAGAZIINES). PERHAPS YOU SHOULD FIND OUT THAT DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO SHOW UP IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. EXACTLY HOW MUCH TIM/SID IS EGREGIOUS? EVEN CHEAP AMPS HAVE AMOUNTS BELOW THE THESHOLD OF HUMANS TO DETECT. IT IS YOUR COMMENTS ARE TOTALLY USELESS UNLESS YOU FIND OUT THE REAL FACTS.

    You know nothing of my experience. I haven't been to an audio salon in years. I base my comments on direct experience to some very nice equipment. If you want to pick on a magazine and it's staff, then you will need to pick on The Absolute Sound. I have known John Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. You really have no idea what HP's current system sounds like vs. live music. Which is the way of engineers who spout theory with zero actual exposure about the components to which I refer.

    OH GEE, EXCUSE ME, I THOUGHT THE ABSOLUTE SOUND WAS A HIGH-END SUBJECTIVIST MAGAZINE WRITTEN BY NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW (OR EVEN BELIEVE IN) SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ....HEY, MAYBE MY ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT THAT FAR OFF?

    I already gave you one irrelevant one. It's your turn to come up with one that does correlate to real world musical reproduction.


    rw

    THD AND FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL TELL THE WHOLE STORY FOR ELECTRONICS (PROVIDED MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE AT ENOUGHT DATA POINTS, I.E., FREQUENCIES, POWER LEVELS, AND LOADS. THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE FROM A PHYSICS/ELECTRONICS PERSPECTIVE.
    REPEAT: DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO BE ENCORPORATED IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. AUDIO ELECTRICAL SIGNALS ARE MERELY COMBINATIONS OF PURE TONES YOU CALL "STEADY STATE".

    I ACCEPT THAT YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME AND HAVE ASKED YOU TO FIND AN EXPERT YOU TRUST. YOU ARE RELYING TOO MUCH ON YOUR EXPERIENCES AND THE STATEMENTS OF CULTISTS SUCH AS THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION.

    I take your response to be that high end amps have lower dynamic distortion and that this distortion is audible at the level found in typical, non high end, amps. I disagree on all counts, but at least you are saying something other than your "experiences".

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    Buddy,
    This cant be good on your blood pressure.
    Stress leads to hypertension and high blood cholesterol.
    In addition, it also has a huge impact on your immune system.
    So not only are you more likely to get sick, but you might plug a blood vessel and kill yourself at the same time.

    Maybe you need a vacation? It IS summer (well...if you live in the northern hemisphere)

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Fine and dandy, but we haven't approached perfection yet."

    How do you know?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. newb question on CD player transports
    By CSMR in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-06-2004, 10:00 PM
  2. CD/DVD transports - Help
    By malibushirl in forum General Audio
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2004, 12:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •