-
Thoughts on the future of HiFi
I need a bit of distraction from real life at the moment, so I figured time for a new thread (actually I may start a few others soon)....
So let me start with my thoughts on the future of HiFi:
I think the folks at Chord Electronics are possibly the most forward thinking persons in HiFi at the moment. The Chordette and a few of Chord's more expensive DACs have a feature that I truly believe will be the future of HiFi – Bluetooth (or some kind of wireless tech)... These DACs are able to access the files directly from your bluetooth enabled cellphone or portable device... Now while I think Chord is crazy to have released such tech years (maybe even a decade) before I can see it being really practical for most persons, I do think it is the logical next step in Music Sever audio... Forget iPod docks with digital outputs, music streamers, HDD music servers, etc... Imagine walking around with your entire music library on a 2TB cellphone/tablet and being able to use wireless to send that info to your home stereo or your friend's stereo (when you visit) and still have that device as the controller for your system... Right now many affordable Music Server options are rather convoluted as you need a storage device, a streamer and a remote... Imagine having your iPhone/Android/iPad/whatever as all 3...
I don't really foresee any other radical change in HiFi... CD will continue to fade out and eventually die, Vinyl will likely still remain a niche market, SS vs Tube is unlikely to be 'resolved', cable debates will continue, planar fans will remain planar fans and box fans will remain box fans... Audio Note will still be a religion (LOL – sorry I could resist a cheap shot at RGA – I'm just kidding though)... The only thing that might gain some traction is Class D amplification – because of the new tech in the NAD M2, which might revolutionize Class D (MIGHT being the operative word)... Oh and expect on-line sales both direct from manufacturers and from used/new dealers to continue to grow...
Any other thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
-
Yes, i think CDs are a dying species, and I don't believe that they will be a part of the next generation of selling formats. However, there are so many of them and so many CD compatible players, it may take awhile to see that medium go away.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio amateur
Yes, i think CDs are a dying species, and I don't believe that they will be a part of the next generation of selling formats. However, there are so many of them and so many CD compatible players, it may take awhile to see that medium go away.
I think CD players will be gone long before the actual discs are... Since many of us, music server users, buy our music on CDs and then rip it to our HDDs... Until downloads from iTunes, Amazon, etc are all lossless then CDs are likely to keep on selling...
-
Well that would mostly be Audiophiles then. I don't think your average listener gives a hoot whether it's lossless or not. Especially with such online music streaming options as Spotify and Deezer, music sales are inevitably falling. I really do wonder where the music industry is heading...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio amateur
Well that would mostly be Audiophiles then. I don't think your average listener gives a hoot whether it's lossless or not. Especially with such online music streaming options as Spotify and Deezer, music sales are inevitably falling. I really do wonder where the music industry is heading...
Lossless and high res formats will be more prevalent eventually... MP3 only gained traction as a format for space saving reasons... they are quick to download and easy to store... With 1TB drives available so cheaply and broadband Internet access common, there is less and less need for low res...
Apple's decision last year to upgrade iTunes downloads from 128K AAC to 256K AAC is a clear sign of the direction downloads are going... Even Amazon uses 256K MP3... So the next move will be lossless - which will offer Apple and Amazon a chance to "upgrade" customers purchased songs to lossless for a "small fee" per song (as Apple did with the last upgrade)...
-
Yes perhaps in the future the concept of a "disc" will be done away with but let's not discount the pleasure derived from browsing a music store, listening to a few CDs, and then making your purchase. I love doing this and have for years and look forward to it each time. I like to come home, pop in the CD or DVD, and read the liner notes. I don't see CDs and DVDs dying at all for now. Walk into an FYE or Barnes & Noble and there are still thousands of CDs and DVDs being sold. I'm building my collection of SACDs now and love the new format. The market here is for remastering older lousy sounding recorded CDs of earlier classic rock, symphony music, jazz greats, etc. I think the future of multi-channel SACDs is bright and new SACDs are being added daily. Yes I'm middle aged and perhaps when we're all not here any longer, then maybe CDs will fade away. There are still many types of audiophile CD and SACD players still being produced. I look forward to someday upgrading to a new unit but for now, my Marantz Universal multi-channel SACD player sounds fabulous. LPs have long been predicted to fade away and they have not. New turntables are being manufactured everyday. So in my humble and hopeful opinion, music on discs is here for a while yet. Blu-ray is just starting to take off and that's all on DVD disc media.
-
I have to agree with Ajani on one point. Music delivery for the masses absolutely will be in the form of downloads in the future, not disc. High resolution music will come in two flavors, a download, or a disc. Disc still have the advantage in this area, as there is more high resolution music on disc, than there is available for download.
Music servers will also be big, when they can get the prices down so the average Joe can afford it. In the mean time, there is a poor man's server consisting of 1-2TB of storage, and a media player. I currently have 3 2TB drives daisy chained that I have losslessly downloaded all of my music to, 3 TB of actual storage, and 3TB of backup.
High quality USB DAC are also becoming the rage, which is great for the Ipod and any other portable music device.
Vinyl will remain niche, and CD disc will soon be also if it exists at all.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I have to agree with Ajani on one point. Music delivery for the masses absolutely will be in the form of downloads in the future, not disc. High resolution music will come in two flavors, a download, or a disc. Disc still have the advantage in this area, as there is more high resolution music on disc, than there is available for download.
Music servers will also be big, when they can get the prices down so the average Joe can afford it. In the mean time, there is a poor man's server consisting of 1-2TB of storage, and a media player. I currently have 3 2TB drives daisy chained that I have losslessly downloaded all of my music to, 3 TB of actual storage, and 3TB of backup.
High quality USB DAC are also becoming the rage, which is great for the Ipod and any other portable music device.
Vinyl will remain niche, and CD disc will soon be also if it exists at all.
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.
I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????
As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.
I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????
As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.
Bill are you kidding?!? 1.5 Mbps is like lightning speed. A typical torrent would come in under a minute I bet. A full discography in ten. I think that's great!! I only have 350 kbps but I am happy with it. My buddy has the package you have and it's stupid fast.
I am making some major moves here at the homestead. My computer will be moving upstairs, to merge with my H/T. I plan on upgrading to a capable BR and CD player, whether that's seperate or not I'm not sure.
Basically I will slowly upgrade my H/T. My 2 channel is approaching a level I can live with. I want to finish retubing the SE40 and then will begin saving for a +$1K TT.
I'm actually excited about it. Lately I have REALLY been enjoying my digital in the H/T. My Jazz DVDs are super fun and sound great. It will mean more time spent enjoying my hobby on the main level of the house. In the summertime, that's important. Sorry about the rambling.
I'll be looking for help from all of you futuristic, sci fi audio types.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
As for downloads, they won't work for me 'till I get a lot better Internet speeds from my ISP than at present; I'm rarely faster than 1.5 Mbps even though I'm supposed to get "up to 5 Mbps". Rogers, (one of two major providers where I am), offers "up to 25 Mbps" but that costs $100/mo. which is over my limit for a luxury.
I understand your boggle. I am very very luck though. I live right across the street from the switch box, and when I had DSL I was getting 6.0mbps, exactly what I was paying for in spite of a lot of people in my area having it. Now I have the 24.5mbps package with fibre optics all the way up to the house, and nobody in the neighborhood has it. I am now getting speeds up to 35mbps, so downloads and streaming are quite a hit in my place.
$100 buck for 24.5mbps?? That is insane. I am paying $45 bucks for that!
Quote:
I would like to see more multi-channel however distributed. SACD or Blu-ray disc would be fine with me provided I can legally rip at least RBCD quality to hard disc. Hybrid SACDs are fine in this regard -- what about Blu-ray?????
Managed copy has been implemented on Blu ray, but nobody has encoded it on disk yet.
Quote:
As a Classical listener 95% of what I want to buy is still on CD; the rest is available on SACD which option I choose of the performance is acceptable.
My collection is mostly classical as well, but I have a fair amount of Jazz and Gospel in the mix. I am on the screeners list for Surround Records and 2L, so all of my new music has been in the form of Blu ray disc. CD is still the biggest part of my collection, and most of it has been ripped and stored on a 2TB drive that I can access anywhere in the house.
-
1 Attachment(s)
there will always be a place for "HI-FI", but the equipment will change.
AS LONG AS there are old farts there will be big honkin amps and speakers,
and antique input sources like records and CD's.
But it will gradually fade, the big explosion of HI FI that got started in
the fifties will eventually disapear.
End of an era, and very sad, really.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
...
$100 buck for 24.5mbps?? That is insane. I am paying $45 bucks for that!
...
Ain't that the truth. It's really just competition or, more precisely, lack of it.
Two outfits dominate the ISP business around here: Rogers, as mentioned, and Bell Canada. Rogers, which is cable-based, seems to have the technical advantage and can offer much higher speeds than Bell which is DSL. Rogers only just matches Bell's price for similar capacity, (as do a few minor players). But Rogers is the only one with the infrastructure to deliver above 10 Mbps and they charge whatever they like above that level.
-
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.
But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of music in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.
It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes.
Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D
Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.
If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D
Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.
If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
Ditto these comments. :cornut:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.
Unless, of course you have a RCM and take care of your collection. I've used a VPI HW-16 for over twenty five years and have some records that old that still sound pristine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
Everything isn't equal and analog remains superior in some respects to Red Book playback. Having said that, I have replaced a number of my favorite vinyl records with CD counterparts and agree that they most certainly have advantages. The future is high resolution digital. Ironically, the current generation who thinks iTunes is wonderful doesn't want or understand that yet.
rw
-
I'd have to agree with the last few posters. I don't have a tonne of vinyl experience, but I did just by a record player recently. IMO, a well recorded CD beats vinyl. The clarity and dynamics, it just kills vinyl in these respects. I can only imagine what high res downloads fed to a great DAC would sound like. The problem with CDs is that far too many are not well recorded. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the medium itself, or is simply due to recording techniques which can affect both mediums. I admit, many CDs sound atrocious.
But all I know is that a well recorded CD is convenient and a pleasure to listen to. Don't get me wrong, vinyl is great and some of my records sound fantastic and better than their CD counterpart. Maybe they all do. But I wonder if it's worth the hassle, because in many cases it's not even close to being a night and day difference. Maybe my expectations of vinyl were too high; if I felt it was vastly better then I could easily put up with the inevitable snap, crackle, and pop noises no matter how well you care for your albums, and the needle wearing the grooves on each successive playback (even if you have an RCM, it's still direct physical contact from a hard needle on soft grooves). The cleaning, the getting up and flipping the record over/changing song. Etc. But if it's not always better, or only just, is it worth it?
So surprise, surprise. It all comes down to the care taken in mixing and mastering an album. If the proper care is taken a CD will sound fantastic. If not then it won't. I suspect the same is true for vinyl, only with less glare and a smoother sound vinyl will not exacerbate the harshness of a poor recording. But one can tailor his system to do the same for CD.
I reserve the right to change my opinion after I've put in a lot of hours listening to my vinyl collection, and maybe after I've upgraded to a nicer table and cart. But for now let's just say I'm a little bit underwhelmed.
-
Any comparisons between vinyl and digital have always used the lowest form of digital audio in that comparison. When you compare 24/96khz, 24/88.2, 24/176.4khz. 24/192khz or DXD digital to vinyl, it does not have a chance, even the most pristine vinyl.
Bernie Grundman has said that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look at vinyl. No matter how euphoric vinyl sounds, it is not accurate by any means.
MP3 was never created as a codec for critical listening, it was a codec of portability. Young people today do not critically listen to music, it is a welcome distraction while doing other things.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
Are there any shades of gray in your Black and White world :D
Convince was part of CD attraction, but I think CD was mainly invented because of vinyl’s limitations such as noise, distortion and Dynamic range that could not be over come. And worst part about vinyls was that it was degradable which mean any time you played it, sound quality would go down a notch due to wear and tear factor.
If vinyl does sound better than CD as some audiophiles have noted, most blame have to fall on method of recording rather than the format. But if everything equal, there is no way vinyl can compete against remastered CD in term of sound integrity and quality.
I don't think there are shades of gray when it comes to the sound. There are factors with regards to degrading sound and I think a poor vinyl rig can sound shockingly bad while a cheap cd player can still provided decent cd sound. My Sony mega changer sounds not too bad and it's about as cheaply made as it gets. While I have bought used Dual turntables that some vinyl philes rave about and no they are not better. It takes more expense to get vinyl to where it needs to be to fend off CD.
The best gear reproducing the best sound is from vinyl. Whether it is against remastered cd or SACD. being a slave to measurements doesn't impress me in the least since $199 SS should sound better than the best Single Ended Tube amps - and it's not the case. And people who make the suggestion on forums are usually the people who have never got their ass off the couch and bothered to audition. Instead they read magazines and forums and parrot back what they have read.
I have heard the new Linn top of the line streaming cutting edge replay - the TT3 kills it. Vinyl does not win in the noise floor camp or the occasional pop and click and that will take many listeners out of the game right there - it did for me for a long while because it is noticeably less than perfect. But CD has an awful time with with nuance and getting the entire sound to the fore. Again all of the noise shaping and filtering takes the MUSIC OUT with the bathwater and over time it is highly annoying. The CD player I am reviewing currently is the best I have ever used in my system despite a relatively reasonable price and has zero error correction, or filtering and is by far the most natural digital I have had in my home. It also very likely measures worse than any other type. So be it. I like the guys who actually listen rather than try to impress with spec sheets and sell numbers to the sheep.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.
If what you state is true, then why did Bernie Grundman who is perhaps the best lathe cutter on this planet state that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look towards vinyl? Apparently based on his experience, vinyl does not sound like the original masters it was cut from, and that it "colors" the sound in a way that is appealing to the ears.(complimentary distortion). It is difficult based on his words to label vinyl vastly superior in spite of the the issues with earlier digital recordings, and the relatively low resolution of redbook CD.
Quote:
But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of tubes in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.
The sonic attributes are not why MP3 has bested CD, it is just what you outlined, convenience, and the ability to download fast and easy.
Quote:
It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.
If these audiophiles really had the "good ears" then why couldn't they identify that the thing the love about vinyl is its distortions? Whether euphoric or not, it is what it is. So what you are saying is the audiophiles with the "good ears" love distortion. Does not sound like their ears are so good to me.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Bill are you kidding?!? 1.5 Mbps is like lightning speed. A typical torrent would come in under a minute I bet. A full discography in ten. I think that's great!! I only have 350 kbps but I am happy with it. My buddy has the package you have and it's stupid fast.
...
Would I kid you, Chad? No, but I guess I lied: today I'm getting more like 2.4 Mbps. Here's my speed result from from Speedtest.net ...
http://www.speedtest.net/result/831032898.png
Note that I'm using Odynet in London, here. Their price for "up to 5 Mbps" is C$35/mo; this is no better than Rogers or Bell, but I have the satisfaction of not dealing with either of the corporate gougers.
Tisk, tisk!! What are you Torrentling? Don't you know that most of that stuff is pirated? (If I torrented anything, I won't admit it. :biggrin5: )
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Would I kid you, Chad? No, but I guess I lied: today I'm getting more like 2.4 Mbps. Here's my speed result from from Speedtest.net ...
http://www.speedtest.net/result/831032898.png
Note that I'm using Odynet in London, here. Their price for "up to 5 Mbps" is C$35/mo; this is no better than Rogers or Bell, but I have the satisfaction of not dealing with either of the corporate gougers.
That's really sad... this is what I'm getting in Jamaica:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/831041916.png
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I don't think there are shades of gray when it comes to the sound. There are factors with regards to degrading sound and I think a poor vinyl rig can sound shockingly bad while a cheap cd player can still provided decent cd sound. My Sony mega changer sounds not too bad and it's about as cheaply made as it gets. While I have bought used Dual turntables that some vinyl philes rave about and no they are not better. It takes more expense to get vinyl to where it needs to be to fend off CD.
And to take your last thought further, it takes more expense for vinyl to fend off CD, but it could never at any expense sound better than high resolution digital even if its price was far less.
Quote:
The best gear reproducing the best sound is from vinyl. Whether it is against remastered cd or SACD.
I profoundly disagree here. There has never been a comparison of SACD and vinyl, so you cannot quantify that statement. What comparisons that have been done have been high resolution audio versus vinyl versus the live feed. Vinyl did not win that one at all, at least not among those listeners that participated in the test. At least 10 of those listeners where vinyl fanatics who before the test were certain vinyl would trounce digital easily.
being a slave to measurements doesn't impress me in the least since $199 SS should sound better than the best Single Ended Tube amps - and it's not the case. And people who make the suggestion on forums are usually the people who have never got their ass off the couch and bothered to audition. Instead they read magazines and forums and parrot back what they have read.[/QUOTE]
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
INDEED :mad:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
All the tech stuff is great - CD was invented and WAS popular because it was convenient. Real Audiophiles stayed with Vinyl because it sounds better. SS came about because it was more user friendly and promised much - Real Audiophiles stayed with tubes. And it appears even audiophiles like me that grew up on CD and SS have moved to tubes and vinyl because despite their pain in the ass nature they sound so vastly superior it's not even remotely close.
But user friendliness was why those others became popular because so few people are audiophiles. MP3 sounds much worse than CD but it is killing CD because it is far far far more convenient. So presumably anything that is more convenient and user friendly will come about and crush MP3. There is nothing really new here. At least MP3 doesn't claim perfect sound forever and lie to everyone. I am not against any of this - I have an iPod connected it up to my car cd player with XPOD and it's great - can listen to 80gigs of music in my car. That's a lot of songs - and it sounds good enough (it is a car after all) and I'm all for making convenient access to music.
It won't replace the niche market - the niche market and Real audiophiles with the good ears kept vinyl and tubes around. But with many philes with thousands of CDs - it ain't going anywhere for at least a decade.
Of course all the experienced audiophiles and reviewers who OWN (not just rave about) CD and/or SS Amps are not "Real audiophiles" and/or don't have good ears...
It could never be that CD and SS have some actual strengths over Vinyl and Tubes that some persons prefer... Of course not, those persons must just be deaf fools...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
That is not a bad speed at all. You should love streaming and downloading!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I profoundly disagree here. There has never been a comparison of SACD and vinyl, so you cannot quantify that statement.
I would agree. One of HP's favorite's is Howard Hanson's The Composer and His Orchestra. Having heard versions of both in his system using the Clearaudio Statement / Goldfinger and an EMM Labs CD-SA SE, I would have to say the digital version was more impressive. I haven't had a chance to visit him with the newer XD-S1 which is said to be better still. Even Madonna's Ray of Light makes the walls disappear on the EMM Labs player with his spectacular system.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If what you state is true, then why did Bernie Grundman who is perhaps the best lathe cutter on this planet state that if you are looking for accuracy, do not look towards vinyl? Apparently based on his experience, vinyl does not sound like the original masters it was cut from, and that it "colors" the sound in a way that is appealing to the ears.(complimentary distortion). It is difficult based on his words to label vinyl vastly superior in spite of the the issues with earlier digital recordings, and the relatively low resolution of redbook CD.
Because one person does not make the decisions for the vast number of experts who design and build the best turntables and the best digital "replay" players all of which to my knowledge will tell you their best turntables "SOUND BETTER" than their best digital. Accuracy to the spec sheet is all fine and good - but the ear brain is better than any measuring device we have. Most measurements support negative feedback - a premise which is fatally flawed and the best of the best SS designers in blind sessions choose cheaper SE tube designs. If you want to throw the ears out of the equation when evaluating audio reproducers then you win the debate. If we hand select which measurements to count and which to chuck then SS and CD and SACD and newer digital wins. I choose to use ears.
I don't want to turn this into "either or" because I am the person who has always said - "buy it all." There is a lot of music not available on vinyl and in order to listen to it you need CD. And vice versa. So buy both - buy the best your budget will allow. Some vinyl is pitiful and a good CD or SACD will better it. But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD. This is not to say that any given CD or SACD won't beat the tar out of the album on vinyl. It's not that every vinyl will be better than every cd. Sorry for the confusion as it seems I gave the impression in my earlier reply - had not had my coffee this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If these audiophiles really had the "good ears" then why couldn't they identify that the thing the love about vinyl is its distortions? Whether euphoric or not, it is what it is. So what you are saying is the audiophiles with the "good ears" love distortion. Does not sound like their ears are so good to me.
I don't buy it. Euphony, second order harmonic distortion, frequency issues are problems with vinyl and Single ended amplifiers. Trouble is guys with Bryston and CD don't appear to be able to hear the "more" severe issues from negative feedback .
In over 700 amplifier reviews Colloms noted that non negative feedback amps for example suffer some frequency issues and thus one could conclude that they are inaccurate (so what everything is), but noted
" It was almost uncanny how this zero-feedback pairing allowed more of the natural vitality and characteristic signatures of notes to be replayed, especially their beginnings and endings. It's as if other components blur these nuances. Well, they may be nuances, but they somehow tell us so much more about the quality of the instrument and of its playing.
Let's consider the outrageous proposition that corrective feedback is fundamentally unmusical. In my reviews, I have observed that high-feedback amplifiers---which have an inherently limited open-loop bandwidth---suffer what is commonly called "midrange glare": a hardening of and forwardness in the upper midrange. Amplifiers with wider open-loop bandwidths have less of this, or their "projection" moves up to the mid-treble. Low-bandwidth, high-feedback designs can end up sounding "dark," even significantly colored in the midrange." http://stereophile.com/reference/70/index3.html
He also noted that most of the top SS and tube makers have been moving to lower the negative feedback. Rather than wait for the likes of Krell and Levinson and ARC and all these makers to finally figure out that zero feedback is vastly better I would rather start by listening to the makers who have already figured it out. It sounds better and it's very likely less expensive.
I'll take frequency response issues since EVERY speaker and EVERY room will impact frequency not to mention the way the human ear and just tilting the head will effect frequency response. The added noise floor is generally not heard at the listening position with music playing. It is filtered out. Everything else in music replay is gutted by CD and SS to get rid of this noise and to flatten frequency which won't matter since the speakers are far worse than the SE amplifiers in distortion or frequency in most all cases. But because people seem to read spec sheets and don't listen to a lot of different kinds of gear they miss what it is Colloms is talking about that is lacking in SS. And CD is a similarly designed concept where error correction is similar to feedback. It is so very very apparent on leading edge and decay of instruments that it sounds "broken." Yes a Bryston or like amp have practically zero noise (I had one in my system) and it's as clear and crisp as it arguably gets. It's also completely unnatural.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
INDEED :mad:
My performance lies between.
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/net.jpg
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD.
As a point of reference, exactly what systems are we comparing? Don't get me wrong - I have two vinyl playback systems and have content going back to 1969 when I started this game.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Of course all the experienced audiophiles and reviewers who OWN (not just rave about) CD and/or SS Amps are not "Real audiophiles" and/or don't have good ears...
It could never be that CD and SS have some actual strengths over Vinyl and Tubes that some persons prefer... Of course not, those persons must just be deaf fools...
Every audiophile/reviewer I have met that owns a premium turntable rig and a premium CD player/SACD machine has said they prefer their vinyl rig. Every single time. I have heard a few premium SACD machines and they "impress" me. But I have to agree with Bob Neill that the CD player he reviewed in the end beat one of the best SACD machines available at the time - and he has not changed the stance with the newer SACD machines. Forget vinyl - with the right cd player I am not convinced that SACD sounds better. The recording may in fact be better (which no doubt it is) but the replay devices have not been and from the consumer side of it that is what matters. Same for CD over vinyl. That said there are very very few cd players designed like the one that Bob Neil reviewed so for the larger "market" when you only have 2-3 manufacturers in the entire industry making them that way then until you have heard a better example of it you have not heard CD remotely sound the way those players reproduce CD - period. How many CD players have you heard that have no correction and no digital or analog filters. Until you have you have not heard CD reproduced in this way or IMO this good.
I am very impressed with Linn and Meridian's Soolos. They sound far better than most CD players I have heard and offer HUGE user friendliness and convenience. And they will get better and cheaper very soon. I am ALL FOR this stuff. And it sounds better than a lot of vinyl replay systems no doubt. Still I have not heard it yet beat the best vinyl systems I have heard (though to be fair those vinyl rigs cost significantly more dollars than the likes of the Meridian/Soolos or Linn set-up). And of course vinyl is a much bigger pain in the arse. So practically speaking it may be good enough to go this route.
I don't believe that people who have heard the best Single Ended amps and the best vinyl would choose CD or SS(of the non SE variety) would make those choices. And if so then I don't trust their hearing ability. If that sounds like I'm a pompous jerk so be it. I can't believe people can't hear what should be very bleeding obvious. Even the guys who design the best SS amplifiers in the business are moving to lowering feedback - they know it sounds better too - but it is more expensive and they can't sell measurements because they get worse. People are slaves to numbers. More Horsepower, bigger breast size, higher torque, more watts, more damping factor, more mega pixels, whatever. In themselves they don't equate to better quality.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
As a point of reference, exactly what systems are we comparing? Don't get me wrong - I have two vinyl playback systems and have content going back to 1969 when I started this game.
rw
Here in lies a vast difficulty in making comparisons. For example the best overall sound I have heard was the new Audio Note TT3 reference player in an all Audio Note system of stupid prices. But it was the best sound I have heard. Playing back several different vinyl pieces. The DAC 5 sig at $76k connected to a Philips Pro device is also the best CD replay I have heard (both should be at these prices I grant you). The vinyl sounds better than the digital. Like it or not, RGA is a fanboy or not, the DAC 5 is widely considered to be "one of" the very best sounding players that CD is capable of. You can make arguments for others but it is without question in the "running" as the best CD reproducers available. The turntable rig sounds better and the manufacturer says the same - as did Linn with their best table bettering their digital.
Going off brand presents far more difficulty. For instance I could take a Clearaudio or a Rega player and connect it up to my stereo and it may very well be that I could prefer an EMM Labs (which also is considered to be one of the very best in the world in designing CD replay - I know people who went from Audio Note to EMM Labs so IME it had to be outstanding and that is what I heard at CES). With the Clearaudio/Rega example they make noted players but in a mix and match set-up more and more becomes less and less controllable to get a great match. The phono stage or the preamplifier's phon stage may not be up to the task of getting all it can from the rig. It is "easier" to make the comparisons with companies that make both CD and turntables and IMO LINN, Rega, Audio Note turntables sound better than their CD and digital. Bringing in off brands then brings us to possible mismatches where anything goes. I have heard the DAC five in a non Audio Note system and it sounded pretty bad. Best I have heard to pretty bad illustrates that system matching is absolutely critical.
So I leave it to the manufacturers - and compare the best set-ups they can muster VS the best set-ups from a vinyl front end and the latter has won the day. I realize there are "pitfalls" in this and that is why I highlight it here. It ends up always coming back to the loudspeakers because you can have a great speaker and a medium quality vinyl front end that will sound better than the best digital in the world held back by medium speakers or amplification (as was the case with the DAC 5).
I think it is FAR harder for most of the people reading these threads to make good comparisons with top vinyl replay because very few dealers carry any of it. Or tubes or SET. People get the most experience with what is available to them. Even in a "rich" city like Vancouver there are not many dealers carrying quality vinyl replay or Single Ended amplifiers or even tube amps. Some carry one or two lines of turntables - Clearaudio(not their better ones), Rega and Project, MMF but this is not really indicative of what vinyl is all about. It scratches the surface to use a bad pun.
Very few dealers are as good as Soundhounds in Victoria BC that has some of the best of all technologies. They carry the Linn and Meridian/soolos streaming systems and they're very very good. I have no problem with people saying they flatten CD sound - they do to many (which may be why Linn stopped making cd players). They also sell top flight CD replay in Audio Note, Meridian, and they also sell top flight vinyl, Linn, Audio Note, among others. And then the SS amps from Bryston, Classe, Musical Fidelity, McIntosh(and tube), Meridian, Sim Audio etc. And then tube amps, Audio Note, Octave, McIntosh, Wyatech, ASL. Then the variety of speakers, Quad, Magnepan, Audio Note, Meridian, Dynaudio, Paradigm, Harbeth, Sonu Faber, B&W, Paradigm, etc.
It allows people to get a sense of what a $500 turntable is doing and a $5k or $20k turntable is doing and what a variety of different kinds of digital technologies are bringing to the table.
Lastly I say again I am not "against" the new technologies - I would like something like the Soolos myself - not against at all - I say again I have an ipod in the car - there is a difference between what I have heard as the "best sound that I have heard" versus the practicalities of ease of use and downright price. As much as I like the TT3 I will never be able to afford it so in a sense the argument is moot anyway!
-
Check out the upload speed :D:D
I know this doesn't count, I'm using a computer at school...
http://www.speedtest.net/result/831129246.png
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio amateur
I must admit, I have never seen a situation where the upload speed is faster than the download speed. That is really new and unique.....
-
CD's sound better than vinyl.
Vinyl is "warmer" and more "lifelike" than CD, and therefore better.
Seems we've been down this road a few times before...
I'm definitely in the CD camp, though I've got plenty of some pretty horrible sounding discs. Still, when I get something like the Mobile Fidelity CD remaster of Santana's "Abraxas" and feel as if I"m listening to the recording for the first time, then I know there's an advantage to CD's. As anyone who owns it know, the original CD of "Abraxas" is horrible.
Likewise, the MoFi SACD remaster of Eric Clapton's "461 Ocean Boulevard" is quite an ear-opener. The original LP sounded downright lousy (I never owned the CD), but the new SACD remaster sounds markedly superior in all respects, again like listening to the album for the first time.
So, CD's and SACD's certainly can - and do - sound better than LP's. Sometimes.
On the other hand, when it comes to classical music, I'm a hands-down supporter of the CD or SACD format over vinyl. NO classical LP that I own comes remotely close to sounding as good as the best sounding CD's and SACD's in my collection. It will be a sad day in my household when - and if - CD's and SACD's disappear.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Every audiophile/reviewer I have met that owns a premium turntable rig and a premium CD player/SACD machine has said they prefer their vinyl rig. Every single time.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything; since most persons who own both a Vinyl rig and a CD/SACD Player don't spend similar amounts on them... Usually one is the main source and the other is used for more occasional duties... So both sources may be "premium" but the turntable may be far more expensive (higher quality) than the CD player... Also, a person who prefers vinyl is more likely to own both a TT and a CDP, than a person who prefers CDs. The reason being that a Vinyl fan may buy a CDP simply because he can't find a lot of music he likes on Vinyl. Whereas a CD fan can find almost anything on CD, so he has little/no incentive to own both rigs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I am very impressed with Linn and Meridian's Soolos. They sound far better than most CD players I have heard and offer HUGE user friendliness and convenience. And they will get better and cheaper very soon. I am ALL FOR this stuff. And it sounds better than a lot of vinyl replay systems no doubt. Still I have not heard it yet beat the best vinyl systems I have heard (though to be fair those vinyl rigs cost significantly more dollars than the likes of the Meridian/Soolos or Linn set-up). And of course vinyl is a much bigger pain in the arse. So practically speaking it may be good enough to go this route.
There in lies a major issue I have with the belief that 'real audiohpiles' use vinyl and tubes... If we limit the discussion to State of the Art equipment then it is certainly conceivable that persons with unlimited budgets may consistently choose Vinyl and Tubes. However, that is not the reality for most audiophiles. We have to choose based on what performs best within our budget. Competent SS and digital can generally be had much cheaper than competent tubes and vinyl.
In fact lets take this line of thought a step further: so many audiophiles show utter contempt for the iPod and claim that it has destroyed music, young persons aren't interested in sound quality and other such BS... Here's the challenge: put together a TT/Tube setup that sounds better than an MP3 player of the same price... Forget even convenience like portability (since the TT/Tube setup would fail immediately), just compare sound quality at a comparable price... And note: no nonsense like scouring A'gon for vintage TT and Tubes and then putting in 18 hours of work to repair them. New gear versus new gear (cuz if you go used, then you need to compare to a used MP3 player - which can be had for like a dollar on ebay)... For persons on a truly limited budget, there is nothing comparable to an MP3 player + it can easily be upgraded by ripping your music to lossless and buying a decent set of earbuds..
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I don't believe that people who have heard the best Single Ended amps and the best vinyl would choose CD or SS(of the non SE variety) would make those choices. And if so then I don't trust their hearing ability. If that sounds like I'm a pompous jerk so be it. I can't believe people can't hear what should be very bleeding obvious. Even the guys who design the best SS amplifiers in the business are moving to lowering feedback - they know it sounds better too - but it is more expensive and they can't sell measurements because they get worse.
Like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
People are slaves to numbers. More Horsepower, bigger breast size, higher torque, more watts, more damping factor, more mega pixels, whatever. In themselves they don't equate to better quality.
I thought we were talking about HiFi.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Here in lies a vast difficulty in making comparisons.
Do I gather correctly in this novelette that you have not compared the same recording on vinyl vs an exceptional SACD player? Why limit your choices to only companies that produce both?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I must admit, I have never seen a situation where the upload speed is faster than the download speed. That is really new and unique.....
The IT department gets all the fun toys. :)
rw
-
Four years of intense education on the ear/brain mechanism teaches me that our ears are the worst measuring devices. Great at determining what is good or bad sounding, but not great measurement devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Because one person does not make the decisions for the vast number of experts who design and build the best turntables and the best digital "replay" players all of which to my knowledge will tell you their best turntables "SOUND BETTER" than their best digital. Accuracy to the spec sheet is all fine and good - but the ear brain is better than any measuring device we have. Most measurements support negative feedback - a premise which is fatally flawed and the best of the best SS designers in blind sessions choose cheaper SE tube designs. If you want to throw the ears out of the equation when evaluating audio reproducers then you win the debate. If we hand select which measurements to count and which to chuck then SS and CD and SACD and newer digital wins. I choose to use ears.
He may not make decisions for turntable designers, but he does the best mastering on this planet for what those designer will play on those turntables. If he says that vinyl is not accurate, you can bet your best pair of shoes he is correct. Doug Sax, another expert mastering engineer has also said the same things that Bernie Grundman has said, so with two of the best mastering and cutting engineers saying the same thing, I basically except what they say as truth. They should know, they cut the lathe vinyl is stamped from. There assessment is not based on measurements, it is based on listening to the vinyl, digital, and the master tapes both came from. So, if the vinyl is not accurate, then no turntable on this planet will make it so, regardless of cost.
I would like for these designers to sit and listen to the master analog tape, and compare that to what their best turntable can do with the vinyl disc. I am sure they would be very shocked at what they hear...I am sure of it!
Quote:
I don't want to turn this into "either or" because I am the person who has always said - "buy it all." There is a lot of music not available on vinyl and in order to listen to it you need CD. And vice versa. So buy both - buy the best your budget will allow. Some vinyl is pitiful and a good CD or SACD will better it. But I maintain that the best "sound" I have heard so far has come from vinyl/SET and not CD or Streaming or SACD. This is not to say that any given CD or SACD won't beat the tar out of the album on vinyl. It's not that every vinyl will be better than every cd. Sorry for the confusion as it seems I gave the impression in my earlier reply - had not had my coffee this morning.
As an audio engineer(I am putting that cap on) the "best" sound is a subjective opinion. The most "accurate" sound on the other hand is totally objective, and excludes our personal biases. Either the end product sounds like the master, or it does not. Best for you may not be the best for me, that is the subjective personal nature of that perspective. The combination of SET and vinyl would not be an accurate representation of even a analog recording, as the amp would add its own sound onto what is already there. The vinyl is already different from the master, so its inaccuracy is already established. From your posts I gather that euphoria is more important to you than accuracy, and I am quite frankly the polar opposite of that.
Quote:
I don't buy it. Euphony, second order harmonic distortion, frequency issues are problems with vinyl and Single ended amplifiers. Trouble is guys with Bryston and CD don't appear to be able to hear the "more" severe issues from negative feedback
I would say the issues of negative feedback are probably benign to our hearing and the issues of euphony are not. You don't really hear the issues of a negative feedback until the system becomes unstable via clipping. The only other disadvantage is that a signal goes from clean to distorted much quicker than with the gradual nature of a non feedback design. When operating normally(or in well designed amp using negative feedback) you don't hear the effects of negative feedback.
And keep this in mind about Bryston. They have come a long way from the 4B(which is your reference), and the amps they design now would trash the 4B in terms of sound quality.
Quote:
In over 700 amplifier reviews Colloms noted that non negative feedback amps for example suffer some frequency issues and thus one could conclude that they are inaccurate (so what everything is), but noted
" It was almost uncanny how this zero-feedback pairing allowed more of the natural vitality and characteristic signatures of notes to be replayed, especially their beginnings and endings. It's as if other components blur these nuances. Well, they may be nuances, but they somehow tell us so much more about the quality of the instrument and of its playing.
So is he claiming that all negative feedback amps are the same? Doesn't he understand that negative feedback amps are all over the map in how much negative feedback is actually used? Could it also be that the Cary design wasn't really designed for negative feedback, and would sound worse when engaged? His quote does not really reveal anything to me..his approach is not very scientific. Take not of the comments by Ken Stevens the President of Convergent Audio Technology. He makes the exact same point I am making.
Quote:
Let's consider the outrageous proposition that corrective feedback is fundamentally unmusical. In my reviews, I have observed that high-feedback amplifiers---which have an inherently limited open-loop bandwidth---suffer what is commonly called "midrange glare": a hardening of and forwardness in the upper midrange. Amplifiers with wider open-loop bandwidths have less of this, or their "projection" moves up to the mid-treble. Low-bandwidth, high-feedback designs can end up sounding "dark," even significantly colored in the midrange." http://stereophile.com/reference/70/index3.html
This sounds like he is just mixing all negative feedback amps into one great big mush of generalizations. What about SS amps that use low negative feedback?
Quote:
He also noted that most of the top SS and tube makers have been moving to lower the negative feedback. Rather than wait for the likes of Krell and Levinson and ARC and all these makers to finally figure out that zero feedback is vastly better I would rather start by listening to the makers who have already figured it out. It sounds better and it's very likely less expensive.
What is better to us is more likely a combination of our own personal likes and prejudices.
Quote:
I'll take frequency response issues since EVERY speaker and EVERY room will impact frequency not to mention the way the human ear and just tilting the head will effect frequency response.
So you will except frequency aberrations all the way through the chain? Not me! A room and a speaker can be corrected with room treatments and EQ, but an amplifier cannot. If it has frequency aberrations, you just have to live with them. I don't usually listen to music with my head tilted, so I do not think that is apart of the equation at all.
Quote:
The added noise floor is generally not heard at the listening position with music playing. It is filtered out.
That masking occurs only as long as the music is louder than the noise. Once the music drops down near the noise floor, it becomes very audible at any distance especially with very efficient speakers. If I record music in DXD and transfer it to vinyl, the noise floor will be much higher than the DXD recording. If I use all of the dynamic range of DXD, you will certainly hear the noise floor even in the presence of low level music on vinyl. Neither vinyl or analog in general has the dynamic range of DXD, so its noise floor will be much higher than digital DXD.
Quote:
Everything else in music replay is gutted by CD and SS to get rid of this noise and to flatten frequency which won't matter since the speakers are far worse than the SE amplifiers in distortion or frequency in most all cases.
I will give you on the frequency response, but your distortion comment I cannot. A well designed speaker will have very low distortion until you push it. A SET amp has a lot of distortion even when operating comfortably.
Quote:
But because people seem to read spec sheets and don't listen to a lot of different kinds of gear they miss what it is Colloms is talking about that is lacking in SS.
So his opinion triumphs all?. I don't think so. His opinion reflects his likes and biases just like everyone else's do. Tubes and SET both change what is heard on the master tape, and one can argue much more than SS amps do. Both have distinct sonic characteristic which are not all the same, and the same could be said for SS designs. Not all tube designs are a like, and not all SS designs are all alike, and therefore no generalization can be attributed to either. Not all SET and tubes designs will sound better than SS designs, and not all SS designs will sound better than tubes. Blanket generalization don't sit well with me based on these facts.
Quote:
And CD is a similarly designed concept where error correction is similar to feedback.
Error correction in digital audio is not audible. That has already been proven.
Quote:
It is so very very apparent on leading edge and decay of instruments that it sounds "broken." Yes a Bryston or like amp have practically zero noise (I had one in my system) and it's as clear and crisp as it arguably gets. It's also completely unnatural.
I have never heard the leading edge and decay of instruments to sound broken as a result of error correction. Error correction is only necessary when an error occurs, and the process is completely inaudible. I have created burned CD discs with known digital errors, and have never heard what you describe when the error was detected and corrected by the system( a light goes on when digital correction came into play).
Once again, your comparison between analog and digital audio is based on the CD, and not true high resolution audio. It is akin to comparing MP3 to 3" analog tape with Dolby SR, as in no real comparison. Once the sampling and bit rates go higher than CD, analog can no longer compete at any level, and at any price.
The differences(not better or worse) between SS amps and tube and SET amps involves a lot of complicated and complex psychoacoustical related issues that cannot be defined by the generalizations that you are using. Why SET and Tube designs can sound better to some has to do with artificial things it does to the signal in reference to harmonics. The broken effect you describe with SS only occurs when the signal is pushed into distortion. If it is not, it doesn't occur. Tube and SET has even order distortion which sounds pleasant to the ear. SS designs have odd order distortions which are not pleasing to the ear, but only occur when the amp is pushed into distortion. When operating normally, this distortion is not audible to the ear. The even order harmonics of tube and SET designs is always present, and that leads to the euphoria, and the idea that it sound better. Euphoria does not equal accuracy. It is akin to sugar water as opposed to just plain water.
I guess my best analogy to this would be my original recording is lemon water. A tube or SET playback of my recording adds sugar to this lemon water. It may taste better, but it is not the lemon water I poured.
|