Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 76 to 78 of 78
  1. #76
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevio
    Given all the fuss over DACs as a critical element in a reproduction system, I was quite surprised that subjects could not hear an extra set of 44.1 kHz AD and DA conversion inserted into the signal path. I think you're claiming this can be explained by the fact that the source material was not of high enough quality to illuminate the additional stages. And yet people claim to hear stark differences in different DACs even when the source is conventional 44.1 kHz, 16-bit sources.
    *nods* Didn't ya know theres huge dramatic differences in sound between lamp cord and megabuck speaker wire? Placebo affect. I've paid big bucks so it must sound better mentality. I'll stick with either CD or vinyl as my main sources for music as SACD and DVD-A add nothing more in terms of sound quaility and is much more costly.


  2. #77
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevio
    And yet people claim to hear stark differences in different DACs even when the source is conventional 44.1 kHz, 16-bit sources.
    I aver that most of the difference lies not with the D/A process itself, but the requisite analog stage following it. I added a Manley DAC/linestage to a Pioneer PD-54 (now used as transport only) which is definitely better. The Manley has a simple class A tube line stage which also obviates the need for a separate preamp. It drives the power amp directly. Huge difference? No, but a meaningful one, especially with wide dynamic range material.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    I've paid big bucks so it must sound better mentality
    Do you actually know someone who purchased cables without trying them out in their own system first? I've always put the horse before the cart. When I worked in audio back in the 70s, we allowed folks to borrow demo units of various components for the same reason. Some cables have made improvements while others have not. I purchase only the ones that do.


  3. #78
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003

    I think the biggest drawback for the consumer is the set-up - people are just not knowledgable enough to set these things up properly by themselves - even experience audiophiles and numerous dealers won't go anywhere near a feedback destroyer or even room treatments. Audiophiles generally don't like EQ's because some feel frequency is not the most important aspect (biggest measurable change but not most important impact). Unfortunate but I used to be like that as well - but I will not judge it until I hear it because several times lately my beliefs about a given technology proved to be incorrect.

    I don't want to fall into old school dogma touting 2 channel - or vinyl or CD or whatever. If several of your favorite pieces of music sounds better to you on Viny,l then if you love music you should invest in quality vinyl replay, if certain music you love is on CD and not on vinyl or sounds better on CD then same thing, you should invest in quality CD replay. And as you can tell where I am going - if music is available on SACD and to you sounds way better than the other formats you should invest in quality SACD. My view is whatever gets you enjoying the music - and hey why not own all three formats?

    People always argue about the formats as to which is better but the fact is there are recordings on all three not available on the other two.

    Another posted noted though that the investment becomes ridiculous for people who have good two channel rigs. Consider that if you owned a top flight vinyl rig - then CD comes out and you decide you need one because your favorite bands don't put out music on Vinyl anymore - so all you had to do was invest in ONE player and the software.

    For SACD and M/C - If an audiophile like me who has a 2 channel rig and wants to go to M/C The investment required is staggering. I need two more pairs of AN J speakers, stands and a processor and an SACD capable machine. Alternatively, and cheaply, I could buy a budget second system but five lesser speakers (like the AX Two staying in brand) is not going to leap ahead of the tonaility timbre dynamics beauty and the dreaded word musicality of the AN J and spatial cues and soundstage just do not make up the difference to my ears. And off brand - well if I really thought offbrand sounded good I would have bought those. No way does 6 B&W 602's suddently trumpt a much better sounding speaker no matter what is done with mixing or even the source discs. The choke will be at the speaker's end.

    Granted some people won't care that much - but it's a real expensive proposition for 2 channel guys.

    That said - I am in a "luckier" position because I have been holding off on the surround sound system through choice and circumstance and I will pull the trigger on a second system down the line for movies and I will have an eye on SACD when I do it. But man those Tannoy Westminster owners trying to SACD perfectly are in for problems

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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