How loud do you listen?

[E-Stat]

Your focus on the quality of the gear just like most audiophiles

You ASSume incorrectly. That is ONE of the parts.

. My sum of all the parts begins with the room, then the equipment, and then the resolution of the source.

That is what I mean by "the sum of all of the parts". Which is why I have a dedicated listening room using room treatments which were placed aided with measurements. Pictures available by following my systems link. As for recording quality, I have little to no control over it. I buy music that I like to hear. It is what it is. Which is why I wish the the industry standard was raised - not just the "special version of certain content" category. All of the parts are - well all of the parts!

What is "lesser" gear when everyone sound preference is quite different?.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wouldn't sell my two channel system and replace it with a decidedly lesser version using five channels. It would sacrifice aspects that are critical to me.

This sounds like subjective snobbery to me

So does the assertion that you must necessarily start with a multi-channel mindset. I do understand, however, that is how you earn your livelihood. My preferences are in no way associated with what puts food on my table.

So what decides "lesser" gear, our sound preference, cost? Surely you can't be saying that your idea, or somebody else's idea of good sound sets the mark for good sound, and the rest of us the might disagree surely has "tin"ears.

Cost alone is certainly not what has driven any of the audio purchases I've made - other than keeping them within my budget. The most expensive item I own was purchased used. I'll agree once again that this is solely a matter of preference.

SACD's decline(not demise) started before computer based audio was widely talked about, or way people listen to audio.

It's time for you to re-read my comments. Start with the first reason I gave. You are referencing the second reason.

And the reason that places like HDTracks exist is because some people like high quality audio that might be too "niche" for places like Itunes. These same people do not like to listen to "lossy" highly compressed audio

Obviously.

SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels.

Do you really think that the 2% "audiophile market" controlled Sony's destiny? I sure don't. Not any more than their other failed concept, the root kit based DRM did. If those who market BR Audio also believe their success is based upon the whims of the "audiophile market" circa 2012, I think they're in for a rude awakening.

[E-Stat]

Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.

I fit into that category only to the extent that I am loathe to completely replace my vinyl library with digital copies (at least where I could). For a handful of cases, I own both formats and find advantages to each. What I'd really like to do is make digital copies of them. I still maintain two turntables simply due to inertia. Other than isolated cases of buying used LPs, I haven't bought one as my "primary music copy" for a very long time.

Similarly, the preamp upstairs gets very light use since it is only for vinyl playback. My two sets of backup Amperex 7308 tubes will likely last me forever. I am, however, in the process of having the cartridge in the vintage system getting retipped at Soundsmith.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You ASSume incorrectly. That is ONE of the parts.

That was not an assumption, but a direct observation.

That is what I mean by "the sum of all of the parts". Which is why I have a dedicated listening room using room treatments which were placed aided with measurements. Pictures available by following my systems link. As for recording quality, I have little to no control over it. I buy music that I like to hear. It is what it is. Which is why I wish the the industry standard was raised - not just the "special version of certain content" category. All of the parts are - well all of the parts!

Since I have only read comments from you that are equipment focused, I thought your sum of all of the parts meant the sum of all the equipment. Thanks for the clarification.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wouldn't sell my two channel system and replace it with a decidedly lesser version using five channels. It would sacrifice aspects that are critical to me.

What would that be? Resolution, coherence? What else?

So does the assertion that you must necessarily start with a multi-channel mindset.

Who made that assertion? I didn't. My comments have always been I like the flexibility of being able to play all formats, and do them all well. You don't have to sacrifice resolution, coherence, clarity, soundstaging macro or micro dynamics either.

I do understand, however, that is how you earn your livelihood. My preferences are in no way associated with what puts food on my table.

Its another ASSumption that I enjoy multichannel because that is how I earn my livelihood. I enjoy multichannel because of the you are there experience, it has no spatial errors built into the format, and more than one person can enjoy those spatial qualities.

Do you really think that the 2% "audiophile market" controlled Sony's destiny? I sure don't. Not any more than their other failed concept, the root kit based DRM did. If those who market BR Audio also believe their success is based upon the whims of the "audiophile market" circa 2012, I think they're in for a rude awakening.

Sony rolled out the SACD format marketing it first to audiophile community with the intention on a more widespread marketing campaign to the masses to follow. The audiophiles largely did not play, and that sunk the format. The BR audio format is being marketed towards the audiophile or audio enthusiast, and it quite frankly is doing quite well. Tying high resolution audio playback to Bluray makes it a better sell, because the players can do video, and the format itself support the highest resolution audio we have ever seen.

[E-Stat]

Resolution, coherence? What else?

Bandwidth without resorting to subs. At least not pricey dipolar ones. Back to coherence.

Who made that assertion? I didn't.

Sure you did:

As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.

That is utter BS - or lack of exposure to what I refer.

Its another ASSumption that I enjoy multichannel because that is how I earn my livelihood.

As you say, that is an observation.

The audiophiles largely did not play, and that sunk the format.

Which was never the case with CD. It was rolled out across the board as the norm.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bandwidth without resorting to subs. At least not pricey dipolar ones. Back to coherence.

So you are saying adding subs reduces coherence. Bull****! With calibration software like TACT, Audyssey, ARC, and Trinnov make subwoofer integration issues a thing of the past. There are very few speakers that can deliver 20-20khz with exceptionally low distortion, which makes subwoofers quite necessary.

Sure you did:

As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.

That is utter BS - or lack of exposure to what I refer.

Two channels can only deliver so much information clearly. Anyone who has mixed and mastered both stereo and multichannel recordings is well aware of this. You can throw as much money as you want at stereo, and it still has that problem. Three speakers across the front can deliver a more accurate spatial picture than two. Five can do more than three, and seven can do more than 5. Two channels require FAR more equalization to get individual elements balanced, and that really goes for phantom images stretched between them. Stereo is a flawed format, and even Bell Labs knew that back in 1932 - so what is taking you so long to catch up?

As you say, that is an observation.

Well your observation is flawed.

Which was never the case with CD. It was rolled out across the board as the norm.

So was Bluray, which is why ist audio only sales surpassed DVD-A and SACD.

[E-Stat]

So you are saying adding subs reduces coherence.

As a blanket statement applying to all systems, no. Whoever said that? Do you remember what we were talking about? Here, I'll remind you. The context is how I would have to reallocate my two channel investment with necessarily smaller dipolar planars requiring a relatively high, low pass filter. Which relates to why I'm not a fan of Martin-Logan hybrids.

With calibration software like TACT, Audyssey, ARC, and Trinnov make subwoofer integration issues a thing of the past.

With very low frequency low pass filters, yes. That's not what would be possible with the MC compromise using my fixed budget. I'm with Siggy Linkwitz in that monopole subs should be used below 40hz with dipole mains.

There are very few speakers that can deliver 20-20khz with exceptionally low distortion, which makes subwoofers quite necessary.

No debate there when you desire high output levels.

You can throw as much money as you want at stereo, and it still has that problem.

What I'm observing is I find that threshold is much higher than you suggest. I'll take HP's two channel system any day over lesser MCs with the vast majority of recorded music. Including his extremely nice MC system in Room 1. I do, however, really enjoy it for movies.

Three speakers across the front can deliver a more accurate spatial picture than two.

That statement of the obvious in no way contradicts my previous observation.

so what is taking you so long to catch up?

Me? The correct answer is: The Music Industry. I like "audiophile quality" niche recordings as much as the next guy. What we need is for that to be the standard.

Well your observation is flawed.

My apologies. For some reason, I thought you got paid for making MC recordings.

[tube fan]

Trust me on this: in 15 years ALL serious high end audio will be MC.

[E-Stat]

Trust me on this: in 15 years ALL serious high end audio will be MC.

It would really be nice if the software were more popular. According to the RIAA, the sum of all music videos, SACD, BR Audio together represent about 3% of the physical media market (which is about half of the overall total). By comparison, vinyl (your favorite) is about 2.5%.

We're not even close.

Unless of course, you're like a guy who I knew many moons ago whose music library consisted almost entirely of Sheffield and Crystal Clear "audiophile disks".

RIAA data for 2011

[tube fan]

It would really be nice if the software were more popular. According to the RIAA, the sum of all music videos, SACD, BR Audio together represent about 3% of the physical media market (which is about half of the overall total). By comparison, vinyl (your favorite) is about 2.5%.

We're not even close.

Unless of course, you're like a guy who I knew many moons ago whose music library consisted almost entirely of Sheffield and Crystal Clear "audiophile disks".

RIAA data for 2011

We are at a pivot point in audio. Digital has dramatically improved, and will get better very fast. Phillip K Dick predicted all this many decades ago!

[E-Stat]

We are at a pivot point in audio. Digital has dramatically improved, and will get better very fast. Phillip K Dick predicted all this many decades ago!

I don't disagree that higher bit rate and sample size music is desirable and computer storage to handle it has become inherently cheaper.

The challenge remains with the music industry's choice of primary format to promote. The CD turns 30 this year.

[tube fan]

I don't disagree that higher bit rate and sample size music is desirable and computer storage to handle it has become inherently cheaper.

The challenge remains with the music industry's choice of primary format to promote. The CD turns 30 this year.

I have detested digital since it was introduced. However, the very best high res has improved to the point where it is only slightly less realistic than analogue. And that only applies to two channel audio. To my ears, the best MC simply sounds much more like live music than any two channel analogue. And, yes, I totally agree with TTT that two channel "improvements" are EXTREMELY slight with higher cost, compared to a budget system. I have NEVER heard a two channel audio system that is significantly more realistic than my modest one (Dunlavy SCIV speakers, VPI Scoutmaster TT, Benz Ruby 3, Auditorium tranny, Audio Research SP 8 preamp, Audio research D 70 amp). The very best MC is a big advance in realism. Yes, software is a problem now. That will be cured in time. I'm old school, but, IMO, the golden era of audio lies in the near future.

[Mash]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

Mash, because digital is a very different animal than analog(which everyone seems to be accustom to), and the digital format that has been around for years was compromised from the very start.

Its not just the 0 and 1's, it is the brickwall filters, oversampling, and the various other band aids applied to the format that are the problem. Pre-ringing is a big problem in digital, and that is not a problem with analog. Jitter is a big problem in digital audio, and it does not exist in the analog domain. 16bits is not enough for recording audio, and the sample rate is not high enough. Two channels are not enough to convey a realistic sense of "being there", and that was understood way back in 1932.

You will find that once people break out of the "Redbook Standard", those complaints evaporate very quickly.

[E-Stat]

You will find that once people break out of the "Redbook Standard", those complaints evaporate very quickly.

Hear, hear!

I truly look forward to the day when hi-rez MC becomes the dominant medium of the music industry - not the 2% solution it is today. Computer storage, processing power and network bandwidth have all significantly improved over the past thirty years providing few technical stumbling blocks.

The industry will, however, have to get over the crippling aspect of current copy protection schemes. Requiring the spinning of a disk to hear music will not play with iPhone dependent GEN Y/Milleniums.

[Poultrygeist]

My ears may be digital but my piano is an open baffle.

[Feanor]

Hear, hear!

I truly look forward to the day when hi-rez MC becomes the dominant medium of the music industry - not the 2% solution it is today. Computer storage, processing power and network bandwidth have all significantly improved over the past thirty years providing few technical stumbling blocks.

The industry will, however, have to get over the crippling aspect of current copy protection schemes. Requiring the spinning of a disk to hear music will not play with iPhone dependent GEN Y/Milleniums.

Well said, 'Stat.

I don't know when M/C will come to portable devices, but I do know that virtually all my serious listening is to computer files, not discs, the exception being SACDs, Blu-ray, or DVD-A, (only got a couple of the last).

[E-Stat]

I don't know when M/C will come to portable devices,

Interesting consideration. Independent of sample size and rate, IEM based systems will always be stereo. There must be a two channel layer somewhere. Sir T groans...

but I do know that virtually all my serious listening is to computer files, not discs, the exception being SACDs, Blu-ray, or DVD-A, (only got a couple of the last).

I'm splitting hairs, but presumably any *serious* listening (aka what can this puppy do?) would be with the hi-rez discs. We're two old guys who don't have any trouble spinning a disk of some sort to play music - because that is the way it always was for us. Nor are we the target audience for the music industry as a whole. Largely irrelevant.

Pitching the spinning of a disc per album, however, to Gen Yers will be received with a "WTF?" They're accustomed to instant access to any track (or combination thereof). The genie is already out of the bottle.

P.S. Quite a bit of my listening is done on the vintage system sourced by the Touch

[BoJonJovi]

In my teens, twenties and early thirties I listened to music pretty loud. I was also around woodworking tools fairly regularly. I also drove around with the drivers side window open in my car. Then I experienced a shotgun blast where the muzzle was within two feet of my left ear. My left ear pardon the pun is shot.
I am now making a nice set of speakers. My son asked me why. I told him because there is allot more going on with music than 20-20000HZ.
I wish as a younger man I would have protected my ears at every opportunity as well as my lungs and my eyesight. But then again I never even saw a bicycle helmet until I had my own kids. It just was not thought about much in the 60's and 70's.
Today I try to keep the volume pretty low. I wish I would have all my life. But gosh I loved loud music when I was young man. Regrets ya, I got a few.

[Poultrygeist]

My hearing should be shot but somehow I managed to survive several years as a cannoneer on an M42 Duster.

[tube fan]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

This is simply idiotic!!! Sound for HUMAN beings is AND ALWAYS WILL BE analogue. Try listening to a CD that does not have a DAC converter. At the 2011 CAS NOT ONE of the representatives of various systems, including pure digital, disputed my claim that analogue was more true to the absolute sound than even the highest digital. In all digital recordings, the original analogue sound must be converted to digital bits, and, then, after processing those bits in trillions of ways, MUST be reconverted back to analogue!!! What a monumental waste!!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is simply idiotic!!! Sound for HUMAN beings is AND ALWAYS WILL BE analogue. Try listening to a CD that does not have a DAC converter. At the 2011 CAS NOT ONE of the representatives of various systems, including pure digital, disputed my claim that analogue was more true to the absolute sound than even the highest digital. In all digital recordings, the original analogue sound must be converted to digital bits, and, then, after processing those bits in trillions of ways, MUST be reconverted back to analogue!!! What a monumental waste!!!

Tube Fan, you have been listening to BS in terms of digital sound, and it seems clear you do not have a firm educational grasp of digital sound. . Most folks that make the claim that analog is truer to absolute sound have never heard anything above red book standard. Once you record in DXD 32/352.8 or 32/384, there is absolutely no analog source out there that is in the same ballpark. Neither vinyl(the most inaccurate way to present audio) nor magnetic tape can approach the resolution of this format. It can be downcoverted to 176.4khz or 192khz without any degradation, and down to 88.2 and 96khz with some slight degradation when compared to the original master(but still sound better than redbook CD).

When you record in digital, you are not processing bits in "trillions" of ways, so cut the hyperbole. Most digitally recorded classical music only have small volume changes made to make sure the recording is balance. There is no other processing other than that. So much for your trillions. And the conversion to analog is done at a far higher resolution than both vinyl and mag tape. It is not a waste to record in digital even if you have to convert it back to analog in the end. Even if you do have to process the signal for any reason, you can do it digitally without degradation as long as you reclock the entire signal to prevent jitter. In analog, each bit of processing degrades the signal, as there is no graceful way in the studio to process analog signals without loss.

You have a very bad habit of overstating your point.

[tube fan]

Tube Fan, you have been listening to BS in terms of digital sound, and it seems clear you do not have a firm educational grasp of digital sound. . Most folks that make the claim that analog is truer to absolute sound have never heard anything above red book standard. Once you record in DXD 32/352.8 or 32/384, there is absolutely no analog source out there that is in the same ballpark. Neither vinyl(the most inaccurate way to present audio) nor magnetic tape can approach the resolution of this format. It can be downcoverted to 176.4khz or 192khz without any degradation, and down to 88.2 and 96khz with some slight degradation when compared to the original master(but still sound better than redbook CD).

When you record in digital, you are not processing bits in "trillions" of ways, so cut the hyperbole. Most digitally recorded classical music only have small volume changes made to make sure the recording is balance. There is no other processing other than that. So much for your trillions. And the conversion to analog is done at a far higher resolution than both vinyl and mag tape. It is not a waste to record in digital even if you have to convert it back to analog in the end. Even if you do have to process the signal for any reason, you can do it digitally without degradation as long as you reclock the entire signal to prevent jitter. In analog, each bit of processing degrades the signal, as there is no graceful way in the studio to process analog signals without loss.

You have a very bad habit of overstating your point.

Gee, a warning from TTT not to overstate my case!!! I've heard the "best" "high res" digital (yes, of course, it's not perfect as they keep making improvements), and, as I have stated, digital is now at least listenable. I got the high res recording representatives at the 2011 CAS to admit that analogue tape was MUCH more accurate than the highest res digital (compared to live acoustic music, yes by listening, NOT by measuring!).

[E-Stat]

I've heard the "best" "high res" digital ...

Just curious. Where did you hear a DXD master?

I would aver that the problem remains with the industry failing to provide to the consumer what formats exist.

[tube fan]

Just curious. Where did you hear a DXD master?

I would aver that the problem remains with the industry failing to provide to the consumer what formats exist.

The Magico Q5 room played high res digital, and it was NOT impressive. I had just come from the Sonist room where they were using decades old analogue tapes as their source, and the sound was dramatically more realistic than any digital I have heard, either at the 2010 or 2011 CASs or in an audio store. BTW, those who are now singing the praises of "high res" digital, have been singing the praises of "low res" digital FOR DECADES!!!