HiFi/Highend/Audio Gear

Whoaaa!!! You just said that out loud

 

I'll say it louder still in case you can't HEAR it: "VINYL IS DEFINITELY BETTER THAN DIGITAL; BAR NONE!!!" You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that. You can also post an infinite amount of " " . those who are really in the game know exactly what I am talking about and would concur.

I'm saying, probably not very concisely, that if there is an actual real difference in sound quality in whatever shape or form, it is measurable and the cause of the difference is also real. I'm not saying there is a "perfect" sound quality, but if you know what you like, knowing what makes that type of sound helps.

 

Different amps, different speakers, and different mediums all have very real measured differences, no argument there. Your amplifier analogy, well, tube amps add even order harmonic distortion with most of it at half the frequency of the fundamental, which makes sound richer and warmer, like playing 2 notes on a piano an octave apart with the lower note much softer but present. Solid state adds odd order harmonics (at a much much lower level) but odd order harmonics always sound harsh, like playing 2 or more notes together out of key. The vinyl sound is mostly eq but with some types of added distortions, tape as well, 16bit 44.1k has high freq limitations without a soft roll off ect etc I can go on about all sorts of things that are real. There is always a cause of the difference in sound quality and it is measurable.

 

 

 

It's all in good nature. When I get around to it I'll do some more listening tests and see if I can hear any differences

 

Good points, Joe.

 

I also think with the whole analog vs digital thing, there's something more fundamental that rarely gets discussed.

 

Analog is the pure waveform, and digital is a (very good) approximation of it. It's hard to resolve how the approximation can be better than the real thing...

 

It's possible the actual digital hardware and recording are better than analog but since we cannot listen in digital we have a problem.

 

Further, with a CD or digital file you have two processes that are irrelevant for full analog playback . One is the a/d conversion to make the CD, then d/a to play it back.

 

I believe that those processes absolutely take away from the end product to an extent that it won't be as good as the pure thing.

 

Compare that to a direct to disc LP or master tape which is analog from beginning to end with no conversions and you can see where the supposed technical limitations can be overcome.

 

It's like comparing crank hp to rear wheel hp. Full analog would be crank, digital would be rear wheel hp.

 

But imagine getting all the crank hp without the drivetrain losses?

 

To me that's analog sound in an ideal scenario.

Somewhere treble got associated with detail.....I don't know why, but it seems to be that way in many circles. To a novice listener it usually is more impressive, but not to one with more experience. Just listening to the two systems back to back, one causes listening fatigue, the other doesn't. It's shocking what I used to like 10 years ago, let alone 5.

 

Treble is highly often confused with transparency and ambiance. And transparency is often misinterpreted as detail. Very typical. Just look at the EQ of rock or any DJ mix; it's often a U curve with de-emphasis on the mid-range. We all know that actual human voice have emphasis in the midrange. This also explains why cello music are pleasing to a number of people as its frequencies are close to that of human voice. People get sensationalized by frequency bumps at both ends of the audio spectrum, hence the U curve, and --- to them --- this is "good" sounding music. Oh well...

 

 

It's all in good nature. When I get around to it I'll do some more listening tests and see if I can hear any differences

 

 

I'll say it louder still in case you can't HEAR it: "VINYL IS DEFINITELY BETTER THAN DIGITAL; BAR NONE!!!" You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that. You can also post an infinite amount of " " . those who are really in the game know exactly what I am talking about and would concur.

 

I concur, naturally.

 

I'll say this though...I know what VCR likes, and he doesn't play around with recordings.

 

However, it is possible for vinyl to sound lackluster if things aren't done right.

 

First , start with a poorly done digital master or even worse make it from the compressed CD which is already limited a bit (loud recording).

 

Second, put a lot of playing time per side (like twenty minutes). Now you limit bass and dynamic range because the grooves will be tighter.

 

The songs closer to the center will exaggerate these problems further.

 

And there's more but no need to continue. Usually a subpar vinyl will sound very similar to cd with a more rolled off too end and that's it. Not worth it in most cases.

 

Worst case scenario it can sound worse than digital , sure.

 

However, when proper premastering is done with a good mix, vinyl is great. Doesn't have to be from analog master but better when it is.

 

Still want more? Limit the sides to under ten minutes at 33.3 rpm, ~7is for 45 rpm. You can see the appeal of the 12" single.

 

Better yet is tape at 7.5 IPS. And better than that is tape at 15 IPS. Most tape is done on four track (program material on both sides), but the ultimate would be two track (top and bottom of tape playing one continuous track ). And we're talking 1/4" tape. Have not heard 1/2"-1"+ but theoretically should be better still.

 

There's nothing secretive about this stuff but a lot of commercial music does not get this level of dedication on average, at least not since the '80s.

 

When done right, these analog mediums dominate. No two ways about it.

Good points, Joe.

 

I also think with the whole analog vs digital thing, there's something more fundamental that rarely gets discussed.

 

Analog is the pure waveform, and digital is a (very good) approximation of it. It's hard to resolve how the approximation can be better than the real thing...

 

It's possible the actual digital hardware and recording are better than analog but since we cannot listen in digital we have a problem.

 

Further, with a CD or digital file you have two processes that are irrelevant for full analog playback . One is the a/d conversion to make the CD, then d/a to play it back.

 

I believe that those processes absolutely take away from the end product to an extent that it won't be as good as the pure thing.

 

Compare that to a direct to disc LP or master tape which is analog from beginning to end with no conversions and you can see where the supposed technical limitations can be overcome.

 

It's like comparing crank hp to rear wheel hp. Full analog would be crank, digital would be rear wheel hp.

 

But imagine getting all the crank hp without the drivetrain losses?

 

To me that's analog sound in an ideal scenario.

 

And that is the basic flaws in digital and was soon discovered after they released the CD. Like you said, analogue is pure wave form. Digital is a number of bars attempting to reconstruct that sine wave. in between bars are the jagged edges and the so-called missing link. These are the demons that is causing havoc to the sound. Over the years, technology had advanced that the bars are now more and thinner, but the jagged edges --- though ever getting smaller --- are still there. A very simple analogy is the circle vs. the polygon. As a square turns into a pentagon, hexagon, septa, octa, poly etc..., it starts to resemble more and more like a circle. But until the lines are perfectly smoothed out, it is still not a circle; close but no cigars. Technology added much more sides to the polygon via higher sampling frequencies, multi-bit etc..., but the lines are still jagged. And then there is reading error, ditter etc... One thing that I had found out over the years is digital is extremely sensitive to electricity and radio interferences which explains the advent and marketing of line conditioners and isolated power supply etc... Believe or not, the 1st-gen Krell CD-reader (for who needs additional info., google Krell and you know they are --- or at least were --- extremely serious stakeholders of the amplifiers and digital products) were extremely susceptible to the 1st gen Motorola flip-type cel phone interference. You can be enjoying music one moment when a call comes in, your cel phone rings and the player will automatically mutes itself.

 

I concur, naturally.

 

I'll say this though...I know what VCR likes, and he doesn't play around with recordings.

 

However, it is possible for vinyl to sound lackluster if things aren't done right.

 

First , start with a poorly done digital master or even worse make it from the compressed CD which is already limited a bit (loud recording).

 

Second, put a lot of playing time per side (like twenty minutes). Now you limit bass and dynamic range because the grooves will be tighter.

 

The songs closer to the center will exaggerate these problems further.

 

And there's more but no need to continue. Usually a subpar vinyl will sound very similar to cd with a more rolled off too end and that's it. Not worth it in most cases.

 

Worst case scenario it can sound worse than digital , sure.

 

However, when proper premastering is done with a good mix, vinyl is great. Doesn't have to be from analog master but better when it is.

 

Still want more? Limit the sides to under ten minutes at 33.3 rpm, ~7is for 45 rpm. You can see the appeal of the 12" single.

 

Better yet is tape at 7.5 IPS. And better than that is tape at 15 IPS. Most tape is done on four track (program material on both sides), but the ultimate would be two track (top and bottom of tape playing one continuous track ). And we're talking 1/4" tape. Have not heard 1/2"-1"+ but theoretically should be better still.

 

There's nothing secretive about this stuff but a lot of commercial music does not get this level of dedication on average, at least not since the '80s.

 

When done right, these analog mediums dominate. No two ways about it.

 

And I concur with you as well.

 

I did play with recordings but that was a long time ago. At the peak of it, I used an AKG tube mic and fed it to a Studer Revox reel-to-reel. Then the digital age arrived and I had a Pioneer DAT which upsampled the input signal. I even tried direct-cut vinyl on a Goldmund and fed it through a Cello Suite and a Cello Palette and then to a Nakamichi DAT1000 to "remaster and tailored" the sound of the LP to my personal preference and archived it in the digital domain via DAT. It was fun but extremely time-consuming so it didn't last too long. Anyway, like you said, there are plenty of ways to screw-up LP (vinyl). A half speed master on 200g virgin vinyl in 45rpm will still sound crap if something as simple as having a wrong azimuth on the cartridge or the tracking force/anti-skating setting is incorrectly set; it will likely permanently ruin the LP itself too. The success of CD is primarily based on a relatively decent sound with minimum setup, being idiot-proof plus portability. This sort of equates the debate on driving a 6-speed manual vs. paddle shifts; when done right, the manual will provide a much better overall satisfaction. Setting up a turntable properly is almost like tuning a carbureted V12 and it's almost a lost art. I am sure that setting up an old Linn Sondek LP12 is no easier than calibrating a Lambo LP500 but to some, that's where the fun lies and when done right, both offer plenty of satisfaction. Living with a high end turntable/tonearm/cartridge setup is just as fun, as frustrating at times and equally costly as living with a classic exotic car. But when everything is done properly, both will make one grins from ear to ear. It is very easy to mess up vinyl and yes we are the minority here but those who laugh at vinyl clearly have been misinformed and have little experience with it or even with live music in general.

OK I bit my tongue through most of this thread but in the end I just couldn't help myself!

 

I've had 25 years in the music biz - not pro but serious hobbyist and occasional semi-pro. I've done everything from recording, producing & mastering, on every format from tascam portastudio through 2" Studer A800, ADAT to the ubiquitous DAW's of today - live performance from chart cover bands to Metal and live sound engineering etc etc

 

In short I've eaten, drunk, slept & sh*t music my whole life.

 

Naturally I've spent a fair amount of that time doing critical listening on just about every relevant playback medium and as the owner of a 'high-end' AV installation company I get to experience some pretty nice kit and also get to experience a lot of overpriced 'esoteric' gear that owes everything to marketing & expectation bias & little in the way of actual performance gains.

 

Hence my opinions do come from (IMHO) a position of valid experience.

 

Anyway, in the interests of keeping the peace I'll go back to lurking..

 

I will offer a final word of advice to any up and coming audiophile: TREAT THE ROOM! It will give you the best bang for buck performance increase and vastly improve the most modest of setups, yet it so often gets overlooked.

 

OK I bit my tongue through most of this thread but in the end I just couldn't help myself!

 

I've had 25 years in the music biz - not pro but serious hobbyist and occasional semi-pro. I've done everything from recording, producing & mastering, on every format from tascam portastudio through 2" Studer A800, ADAT to the ubiquitous DAW's of today - live performance from chart cover bands to Metal and live sound engineering etc etc

 

In short I've eaten, drunk, slept & sh*t music my whole life.

 

Naturally I've spent a fair amount of that time doing critical listening on just about every relevant playback medium and as the owner of a 'high-end' AV installation company I get to experience some pretty nice kit and also get to experience a lot of overpriced 'esoteric' gear that owes everything to marketing & expectation bias & little in the way of actual performance gains.

 

Hence my opinions do come from (IMHO) a position of valid experience.

 

Anyway, in the interests of keeping the peace I'll go back to lurking..

 

I will offer a final word of advice to any up and coming audiophile: TREAT THE ROOM! It will give you the best bang for buck performance increase and vastly improve the most modest of setups, yet it so often gets overlooked.

 

I will agree with you that room treatment is a big thing. Speaker setup is also a big art.

 

I'll hit ya up on PM about some of your experiences.

 

Zack, you wouldn't be the first guy from the pro world to dismiss analog or view audiophile gear as colored or overrated.

 

It's all good.

 

Just something to keep in mind that the two camps (pro & audiophile) have completely different goals. One is primarily invested in recording/touching up music for commercial release, the second is to maximize playback enjoyment at every opportunity.

 

Pro guys I don't think can enjoy music as much as they would want because to them it's work. And they tend to go with the meters and technical stuff over what they hear anyways. This is not a judgment from me....this is what most of them tend to freely admit to the public.

 

Most of their setups are there to try to process sound for production, not so much maximum enjoyment. Are the two mutually exclusive? I don't believe so, but it's possible it is.

 

Then there's the issue of money and affording the best gear. To an audiophile, they want the best they can afford. For some it's not tons of money, and for others they can spend a fortune. If they have the ears for it, it's worth it in little gains.

 

A pro guy might be able to appreciate this stuff, but in the end if it doesn't make any more money it's not worth it.

 

Now that attitude is fine, but then don't turn around and say you've heard the best (not saying you personally).

 

For what it's worth, a lot of pro guys don't like horns.....they heard one or two bad horns and wrote off an entire industry unfortunately. To some of us, horns are the best....they give you dynamic range conventional drivers only cannot deliver.

 

The analog thing.....gotta be able to appreciate that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to see some of your music rooms. It's always revealing to se whole room what kind of room, treats and goods individuals have end up putting together.

Zack, based on the credentials that you had listed and my depiction of my own recording experiences, it's fair to say that neither of us are anywhere near from BS'ing and we had seen/used some serious hardware in our lives. Music is for enjoyment; not as an issue to ruffle feathers. Clearly, we take music to our hearts so it's all good.

 

There will always be the debate on hi-end esoteric speakers vs. studio monitors --- how one can "beautify" music while the other "tell it the way it is.". Surely, you would recall the infamous argument on the white-cone Yamaha NS-series monitors being blend and/or the BBC LS3/5a mini monitors being coloured etc... In a way, it is not unlike the debate on the Lambo G / LP5x0 series vs. the MP4/12C. Fellippe had also worded the debate of music as work vs. music as a hobby very eloquently. I will add that it is interesting to cite on professional musicians --- classical, rock, jazz etc... --- and the hardware that they choose on their own playback systems at their own homes.

 

Marketing plays a role in everything and everywhere. You would concur that some recording engineers are ordered to add frequency bump(s) to the music for added appeal to certain groups of consumers who enjoys such "inaccuracies" within the final release. That's marketing by the pros, is it not? Oh well...

 

I had said on many of my posts regarding esoteric hi-end hi-fi that the room is the finite and ultimate component of the entire playback system. I even went as far as saying instead of treating the room, if situation allows it, build the room instead. To reiterate a bit, make a live-end-dead-end room starting with dimensions based on the golden rectangle rule. ASC tube traps, diffusers and absorbers, Sonnex foam tiles are almost mandatory but careful selection of carpet, wallpaper and even some creativity using household items would help too. And as afore-mentioned, the digital age demands super clean electrical power sources so have a few dedicated circuits fitted into the room and make sure the lighting circuit is separated from the audio gear. Use regular incandescent bulbs (you can thank me later, Wheels) without any dimmer switches; no weird looking Earth-friendly bulbs, fluorescent or LED as they all require ballasts and will induce hum. Connect the circuits to isolated transformers if needed but one inexpensive and very effect way that guarantees to make a striking difference is to ensure proper grounding to the entire AC grid of the room. Separate the grounding from all the electrical appliances of the home. Building a stand alone grounding rod and plant it into the foundation would be ideal.

 

Lastly, allow me to share an experience I just had on extreme marketing. As PC/iTune music becomes more and more popular, USB cable is the next "gold mine" for marketing gurus. The esoteric hi-end world had just released a so-called State-of-the-Art USB cable. It's by Crystal Cable and the model is called the Absolute Dream. It has all the marketing jargon: mono crystal metallurgy, rare wire-winding matrix etc... We were comparing it to a regular USB cable that's you can pick up at anywhere to a hi-end Audioquest (the one that piggyback a battery to keep the cable charged), to a silver infused cable from Oyade. Naturally, the no name USB came in dead last in terms of sound quality; the interesting part is the lesser expensive Oyade actually sounded better than the AQ (the Oyade costs USD150 less). The Crystal won by quite a far margin but it is absolutely lunacy for its price --- get ready for this --- USD13,000.-!!! No typo, 17k for a 1.5m long USB cable! It is best sounding but no way in hell or heaven or anywhere for that matter is it worth 17 grand. But, as they say, there is one born every minute and Crystal Cable asks for such insane price because they can. But is it 1000x better sounding than your regular USB cable, no bloody way whatsoever; the rate of diminishing return prominently applies here. The marketing and the hype jacks the price into outer space but they got away with it because there are people paying for it; and let's not overlook the vanity of ownership --- bling audio cable I guess. And that's what upsets people: pro, semi-pro and hobbyist et al. But 2 undeniable facts stand: it sounds categorically better even to the regular Joe. There is a market for it despite its bonkers price. Whether it is worth it or not is entirely personal and subjective. I liked what I heard but I think there are plenty more interesting toys out there for that kind of coins. It's the Absolute Dream alright but Absolute Lunacy is a more fitting name but it looks like it is the Absolute Dream for the manufacturer and the dream just came true!

OK I bit my tongue through most of this thread but in the end I just couldn't help myself!

 

I've had 25 years in the music biz - not pro but serious hobbyist and occasional semi-pro. I've done everything from recording, producing & mastering, on every format from tascam portastudio through 2" Studer A800, ADAT to the ubiquitous DAW's of today - live performance from chart cover bands to Metal and live sound engineering etc etc

 

In short I've eaten, drunk, slept & sh*t music my whole life.

 

Naturally I've spent a fair amount of that time doing critical listening on just about every relevant playback medium and as the owner of a 'high-end' AV installation company I get to experience some pretty nice kit and also get to experience a lot of overpriced 'esoteric' gear that owes everything to marketing & expectation bias & little in the way of actual performance gains.

 

Hence my opinions do come from (IMHO) a position of valid experience.

 

Anyway, in the interests of keeping the peace I'll go back to lurking..

 

I will offer a final word of advice to any up and coming audiophile: TREAT THE ROOM! It will give you the best bang for buck performance increase and vastly improve the most modest of setups, yet it so often gets overlooked.

 

Nice. I'm definitely the "Wheels" of the bunch in here. I've done the whole recording/producing/mastering thing but only using Cubase.

 

 

 

I will agree with you that room treatment is a big thing. Speaker setup is also a big art.

 

I'll hit ya up on PM about some of your experiences.

 

Zack, you wouldn't be the first guy from the pro world to dismiss analog or view audiophile gear as colored or overrated.

 

It's all good.

 

Just something to keep in mind that the two camps (pro & audiophile) have completely different goals. One is primarily invested in recording/touching up music for commercial release, the second is to maximize playback enjoyment at every opportunity.

 

Pro guys I don't think can enjoy music as much as they would want because to them it's work. And they tend to go with the meters and technical stuff over what they hear anyways. This is not a judgment from me....this is what most of them tend to freely admit to the public.

 

Most of their setups are there to try to process sound for production, not so much maximum enjoyment. Are the two mutually exclusive? I don't believe so, but it's possible it is.

 

Then there's the issue of money and affording the best gear. To an audiophile, they want the best they can afford. For some it's not tons of money, and for others they can spend a fortune. If they have the ears for it, it's worth it in little gains.

 

A pro guy might be able to appreciate this stuff, but in the end if it doesn't make any more money it's not worth it.

 

Now that attitude is fine, but then don't turn around and say you've heard the best (not saying you personally).

 

For what it's worth, a lot of pro guys don't like horns.....they heard one or two bad horns and wrote off an entire industry unfortunately. To some of us, horns are the best....they give you dynamic range conventional drivers only cannot deliver.

 

The analog thing.....gotta be able to appreciate that.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the ear of audio engineers. Yes they have to work within the limitations of recording and playback systems but pro studios take anything that adds more detail, dynamic range, freq range, anything that can give a competitive edge very seriously. Anything that does nothing is a waste of time. The referencing of meters is because human hearing is a variable. Rest assured if a HiFi enthusiast can hear something an audio engineer can hear it too.

 

I had said on many of my posts regarding esoteric hi-end hi-fi that the room is the finite and ultimate component of the entire playback system. I even went as far as saying instead of treating the room, if situation allows it, build the room instead. To reiterate a bit, make a live-end-dead-end room starting with dimensions based on the golden rectangle rule. ASC tube traps, diffusers and absorbers, Sonnex foam tiles are almost mandatory but careful selection of carpet, wallpaper and even some creativity using household items would help too. And as afore-mentioned, the digital age demands super clean electrical power sources so have a few dedicated circuits fitted into the room and make sure the lighting circuit is separated from the audio gear. Use regular incandescent bulbs (you can thank me later, Wheels) without any dimmer switches; no weird looking Earth-friendly bulbs, fluorescent or LED as they all require ballasts and will induce hum. Connect the circuits to isolated transformers if needed but one inexpensive and very effect way that guarantees to make a striking difference is to ensure proper grounding to the entire AC grid of the room. Separate the grounding from all the electrical appliances of the home. Building a stand alone grounding rod and plant it into the foundation would be ideal.

 

Lastly, allow me to share an experience I just had on extreme marketing. As PC/iTune music becomes more and more popular, USB cable is the next "gold mine" for marketing gurus. The esoteric hi-end world had just released a so-called State-of-the-Art USB cable. It's by Crystal Cable and the model is called the Absolute Dream. It has all the marketing jargon: mono crystal metallurgy, rare wire-winding matrix etc... We were comparing it to a regular USB cable that's you can pick up at anywhere to a hi-end Audioquest (the one that piggyback a battery to keep the cable charged), to a silver infused cable from Oyade. Naturally, the no name USB came in dead last in terms of sound quality; the interesting part is the lesser expensive Oyade actually sounded better than the AQ (the Oyade costs USD150 less). The Crystal won by quite a far margin but it is absolutely lunacy for its price --- get ready for this --- USD13,000.-!!! No typo, 17k for a 1.5m long USB cable! It is best sounding but no way in hell or heaven or anywhere for that matter is it worth 17 grand. But, as they say, there is one born every minute and Crystal Cable asks for such insane price because they can. But is it 1000x better sounding than your regular USB cable, no bloody way whatsoever; the rate of diminishing return prominently applies here. The marketing and the hype jacks the price into outer space but they got away with it because there are people paying for it; and let's not overlook the vanity of ownership --- bling audio cable I guess. And that's what upsets people: pro, semi-pro and hobbyist et al. But 2 undeniable facts stand: it sounds categorically better even to the regular Joe. There is a market for it despite its bonkers price. Whether it is worth it or not is entirely personal and subjective. I liked what I heard but I think there are plenty more interesting toys out there for that kind of coins. It's the Absolute Dream alright but Absolute Lunacy is a more fitting name but it looks like it is the Absolute Dream for the manufacturer and the dream just came true!

 

If I was building a room from scratch I'd avoid parallel walls/floor/ceiling altogether.

 

USB really isn't made for perfectly accurate audio streams to begin with. What audio format was used for the test? I'd use USB for 16bit 44.1k stereo only, but I'm guessing you used a higher bit and sample rate for your test?

 

 

 

Anyway I've probably spoken far to much in here. I'll continue to lurk this thread and read what the big boys have to say with much interest.

Pro guys I don't think can enjoy music as much as they would want because to them it's work. And they tend to go with the meters and technical stuff over what they hear anyways. This is not a judgment from me....this is what most of them tend to freely admit to the public.

 

? can you elaborate on that?

 

 

The analog thing.....gotta be able to appreciate that.

 

As a recording medium - absolutely!

 

As a reproduction medium - not so much!

 

Lastly, allow me to share an experience I just had on extreme marketing. As PC/iTune music becomes more and more popular, USB cable is the next "gold mine" for marketing gurus. The esoteric hi-end world had just released a so-called State-of-the-Art USB cable. It's by Crystal Cable and the model is called the Absolute Dream. It has all the marketing jargon: mono crystal metallurgy, rare wire-winding matrix etc... We were comparing it to a regular USB cable that's you can pick up at anywhere to a hi-end Audioquest (the one that piggyback a battery to keep the cable charged), to a silver infused cable from Oyade. Naturally, the no name USB came in dead last in terms of sound quality; the interesting part is the lesser expensive Oyade actually sounded better than the AQ (the Oyade costs USD150 less). The Crystal won by quite a far margin but it is absolutely lunacy for its price --- get ready for this --- USD13,000.-!!! No typo, 17k for a 1.5m long USB cable! It is best sounding but no way in hell or heaven or anywhere for that matter is it worth 17 grand. But, as they say, there is one born every minute and Crystal Cable asks for such insane price because they can. But is it 1000x better sounding than your regular USB cable, no bloody way whatsoever; the rate of diminishing return prominently applies here. The marketing and the hype jacks the price into outer space but they got away with it because there are people paying for it; and let's not overlook the vanity of ownership --- bling audio cable I guess. And that's what upsets people: pro, semi-pro and hobbyist et al. But 2 undeniable facts stand: it sounds categorically better even to the regular Joe. There is a market for it despite its bonkers price. Whether it is worth it or not is entirely personal and subjective. I liked what I heard but I think there are plenty more interesting toys out there for that kind of coins. It's the Absolute Dream alright but Absolute Lunacy is a more fitting name but it looks like it is the Absolute Dream for the manufacturer and the dream just came true!

 

 

must.......resist.......must...restrain.....myself...!

 

 

I'm interested in this test, would you mind elaborating: what source, what DAC(s), what speakers, what amp, double blind?

 

Cheers

 

ack

 

 

Zack... Just out of curiosity, what do you think is the best equipment you've heard? Playback, not recording.

If I was building a room from scratch I'd avoid parallel walls/floor/ceiling altogether.

 

USB really isn't made for perfectly accurate audio streams to begin with. What audio format was used for the test? I'd use USB for 16bit 44.1k stereo only, but I'm guessing you used a higher bit and sample rate for your test?

 

In the old days, yes. 17years ago, I had a room that was basically a long trapezoid with the backwall slightly offset by 4". Had a field day arguing with the framer of the room. Nowadays, with panels that can be easily hung and with a choice of either absorbing or diffusing sound, it is no longer necessary. Tube traps also helps substantially. The beauty of these is that they can be moved and thus tailor-tuned to the sound subject to the tonal signatures of the hardware. Once the room had been build, the walls are done and you still need sound treatment anyway. The framer will be a lot happier too.

 

 

? can you elaborate on that?

 

As a recording medium - absolutely!

 

As a reproduction medium - not so much!

 

 

must.......resist.......must...restrain.....myself...!

 

 

I'm interested in this test, would you mind elaborating: what source, what DAC(s), what speakers, what amp, double blind?

 

Cheers

 

ack

 

As a reproduction medium --- well if one likes to tweek, it's a good toy. Look at it this way, why would people like manual transmission in a car? Subject to one's opinion/bias, setting up a tonearm can be both a nightmare and a ton of joy.

 

LOL on the restrain.

 

On the test, the source was from either a 1st gen iPod, the big one that has a lot of memory in it; or from a Mac book pro. All files are in lossless format. DAC: Dodson DA-218 MkII Palladium and Wadia 121 and Meridian Media Core 600. Amplification was through products from Artemis Labs, Conrad Johnson and Boulder. Both the Wadia and Meridian, at times, fed the power amp directly. I.e. no pre-amp as they served double-duty as a digital pre-amp. Most cabling were either Siltech or Transparent (to get both end of the spectrum). Speakers were Verity Lohengrin II or Wilson Alexandria 2. An Esoteric P-01 transport was also used as a benchmark; it played the same CDs that were used to rip onto the lossless files. Using the CD as a benchmark, doubleblind was not necessary. Sampling rate was at 24/192. I also agree that USB and HDMI are both inferior connectors for audio. But it was a USB cable comparison so not much we can do. The cable between the transport and the DAC's was Kimber TGDL wth AES/EBU (XLR) termination.

Cool. Will the full results be published somewhere?

 

To elaborate on my own opinion of analog, I love the sound of subtle tape compression and it is (was!) a fantastic studio tool to 'bind' together a mix. I wouldn't want to apply that sort of treatment during reproduction though as I am very much of the opinion that reproduction should be exactly that - and anything that 'adds' - ( with the exception of EQ - when it's 'equalizing' - of course) should be avoided...

 

To answer the question about the best equipment I've heard - VCR you are not going to like this !! :

 

In the home it was a pair of Definitive Technology Mythos ST's powered from a Denon AVR with some SACD player as the source ( we didn't supply the SACD player so I can't remember what it was)

 

So, an extremely modest setup but the sound was stunning - fantastic stereo separation, clarity & dynamics - what more could you want

 

I put this down to :

 

Fantastic sounding room - a pure fluke - a lucky coincidence of heavy drapes, think pile carpet & soft furnishings everywhere.

 

We were playing excellent quality recordings - garbage in = garbage out ( I'm sure that will be one thing myself and VCR agree on !)

 

I think those speakers are actually pretty decent quality. We've since installed in various other properties and although not quite reached the same levels of performance due to compromises in the rooms, bang for buck they stack up pretty well I'd say..

 

 

I just want to add a disclaimer: over the years I have heard a dozen or so 'Absolute Lunacy' systems (© VCR) - owned by various clients of mine, and every single one has left me distinctly unimpressed.. However, it is true that most of these clients fall into the 'more money than sense' category and is quite likely that the systems were not setup correctly / matched / optimised - I would certainly hope so anyway..

 

That said, I will always be skeptical of any piece of gear or cable that makes outlandish performance claims... If there is an audible difference then that difference should be measurable, or at least proven with double blind tests.. One you get beyond the 'sensible' improvements - of which VCR mentioned in his post earlier - then those measurements or test results tend not to be forthcoming.

 

PS. I still prefer a manual - 5 speed in my case

 

In the old days, yes. 17years ago, I had a room that was basically a long trapezoid with the backwall slightly offset by 4". Had a field day arguing with the framer of the room. Nowadays, with panels that can be easily hung and with a choice of either absorbing or diffusing sound, it is no longer necessary. Tube traps also helps substantially. The beauty of these is that they can be moved and thus tailor-tuned to the sound subject to the tonal signatures of the hardware. Once the room had been build, the walls are done and you still need sound treatment anyway. The framer will be a lot happier too.

 

 

 

On the test, the source was from either a 1st gen iPod, the big one that has a lot of memory in it; or from a Mac book pro. All files are in lossless format. DAC: Dodson DA-218 MkII Palladium and Wadia 121 and Meridian Media Core 600. Amplification was through products from Artemis Labs, Conrad Johnson and Boulder. Both the Wadia and Meridian, at times, fed the power amp directly. I.e. no pre-amp as they served double-duty as a digital pre-amp. Most cabling were either Siltech or Transparent (to get both end of the spectrum). Speakers were Verity Lohengrin II or Wilson Alexandria 2. An Esoteric P-01 transport was also used as a benchmark; it played the same CDs that were used to rip onto the lossless files. Using the CD as a benchmark, doubleblind was not necessary. Sampling rate was at 24/192. I also agree that USB and HDMI are both inferior connectors for audio. But it was a USB cable comparison so not much we can do. The cable between the transport and the DAC's was Kimber TGDL wth AES/EBU (XLR) termination.

 

 

Forgive me if I thought your starting point with a golden rectangle room didn't quite sit well along side your otherwise completely uncompromising stance! I guess there is a lot less experience out there re. taming a trapezoid room compared to a golden box, better the devil you know.

 

 

Just a couple of things re. the test: Automatically choosing the maximum bit and sample rate isn't always the best option as ADC and DAC chips often perform with less THD at lower bit and sample rates. It's easy to find data published by some chip manufacturers.

I'm not sure what bit and sample rate the reference CD's were but if they were 16/44.1 then upsampling them to 24/192 is not ideal, you're adding yet another process to the chain that doesn't need to be there, there is no new information be made out of thin air but if needed then 24bit 176.4k is better because each 4th sample is a known and doesn't require interpolating. Lastly upsampling to such a high rate puts much more load on the whole USB data stream, the chips themselves and the cable, making it all much more prone to errors. 16/44.1 through the USB might actually sound better than the upsampled 24/192!

 

 

 

 

I'm going to add one more thing I think doesn't get mentioned much then I promise I'll go away:

 

Many people chase frequencies out of reach of human hearing, logic being if it's more real, it must be better. If it was that simple then of course! Problem is there is no perfect transducer, they all introduce distortion of different types. A speaker asked to reproduce 20khz will do so to it's best abilities, you won't be able to hear it however much of the distortion caused from the fundamental will be down in the audio range!

Zack, it's all good . Hi Fi is definitely a highly subjective matter and is widely opened to personal preference. Btw, I'm not Monaco Bodyguard so no need to give me credit on the copyright/trademark terminology.

 

Def Tech is a decent pair of speakers imo and Denon and Marantz are likely the best consumer receivers that one can buy in terms of overall flexibility and reasonably good sound (same owner anyway). The fact that you have a SACD player tells us where you truly stand as far as the analogue / digital debate. Like Fellippe had said, you are not the first (or last) person in the recording industry to dismiss esoteric hi-fi.

 

I know you would prefer a manual transmission and, quite frankly, so do I.

 

 

Joe, like I said, 17years ago, my old music room had no parallel sides; I had a cathedral ceiling for the room. With the advance of room treatment, that is no longer necessary. The Golden Triangle rule applies to the new room as it's the easiest to start with. My ceiling is still slightly tilted and has different grades of textured wallpaper at various spots for proper sound treatment. Different components have their own tonal signatures and sound stage depth and width. An unparalleled room has its merits but once it's built, the walls are as they were. For the new room, I can move/swap the sound treatment panels at will which create more flexibility to tailoring and tuning the sound.

 

I agree on the up-sampling technology not being necessary "more is better". But these are consumer products and some hardware come as they were and cannot be adjusted. Also, at the end of the day, it's just based on regular use so the sampling was based on the current norm. I forgot the exact number but I think my DAT works at 46.1 and it sounded fantastic.

 

The test was entirely based on the curiosity of an USB cable that costs $$$$. Yes, it won (it better win) in terms of overall sound quality and the improvement was obvious but not exponentially while the cost is totally exponential. So it does not justify the expenditure whatsoever. I am not an audio reviewer and this is a hobby. If I or my friends who did the comparison had to document or even publish the whole thing, then it defeats the purpose as a hobby for fun.

 

Lastly, I have reservations about limiting to the audible spectrum. Fundamentally, that is true by academia but one can truly "feel" and "visualize" the sound stage with the help of the higher frequencies beyond the 20kHz which explains the existence or even the necessity of ribbon tweeters. I do agree that most of the serious end of business happens within the audio spectrum of the human ear and it's not even from 20-20kHz. But every bit of LF and HF helps especially when it comes to major orchestral works that has a huge dynamic range or even trying to recreate the ambiance of a jazz bar.

Hey VCR - just one more question regarding the USB cable:

 

I would assume that the improvement in sound quality you perceive using the expensive cable is a result of hearing less errors? Is that true or is there more to it than that do you think?

 

Cheers

 

Zack

 

 

 

PS - it wasn't my SACD player - never owned one.

? can you elaborate on that?

 

 

 

 

As a recording medium - absolutely!

 

As a reproduction medium - not so much.

 

The general gist of many a pro guy is to be very technical by nature and to often override the viewpoints of those who like a certain sound better.

 

If you go to the pro audio forums you'll see your fair share of this. The pro guy who agrees with guys like VCR and myself are far less than the ones who don't.

 

In life I tend to say that what your specialty is is what matters. I have zero experience recording,mixing, mastering...so for the most part I can't be authoritative in that area from a dissenting viewpoint.

 

However I have a few thousand hours of listening experience in home audio and car audio....and more importantly I've been able to get into the good and elite stuff the last several years. A pro guy spends his time on recordings , I just listen to them. A/B speakers, amps, DACs, turntables, phono stages, cables, etc.

 

And the big boys I've been around buy toys that most pro guys couldn't afford. You don't need a $60k Audio Note DAC 5 signature to make music but it sure as hell would be nice to have. Its at a level where you could almost retire from analog, it's that good. There's a lot of guys with really, really deep pockets in this game -- a DAC that much is a more Baller purchase than buying a $500k car when you factor the proper proportion of things.

 

I'm around this stuff by proxy of a friend who has an audio store, and a private club with nice gear. I used to battle him like an asscelerator in the old days with theory until he shut me down completely, and now I can take anything he says verbatim and I rarely disagree these days. LOL.

 

I've heard a few amps that are so good, I could mate them with some cheap crap from best buy or radio shack ($100 or less), and still would produce an audiophile experience good enough most ppl wouldn't believe what they are hearing. There's probably a handful of amps that could accomplish this (in no particular order, Audio Note gaku on, western electric 59b, 124 and perhaps a few others). Nobody in the music business is using this level of gear. Hell most guys that subscribe to stereophile , the absolute sound haven't heard this gear either.

 

And we haven't touched on setup either and room treatment -- that's a harder to comeby skillet.

 

By comparison there are far more humans who have owned Ferraris, Lambos ,etc than have owned this stuff. Think about that for a second.

 

Btw, the law of diminishing returns applies universally so you don't have to be a billionaire to have nice sound. I've heard enough well setup $15-30k systems that are outstanding, putting many

commercial stuff costing much more, to shame.

 

The big reason commercial hifi is overrated is because the margins are a lot higher than the "boutique" stuff (10 to 1 vs 2-3 to 1), and their voicing is more technical/bright than natural/warm. And in case you think natural/warm is incorrect, go to a jazz concert and pay attention if the trumpets and saxes hurt your ears; they won't. Which is what the gear I like will do a better job of doing than the so called "accurate and detailed stuff".

 

The pro stuff is too clinical sounding. I won't debate if that's truly better or not for the music recording side but definitely not what I'd want to own for playback.

 

As for analog, it is still the truer essence of music recording and playback on an emotional level, for sure.

 

I don't need the entire world to agree with me, just enough to keep this stuff in business.

 

 

 

Thanks for your replies VCR and Fellippe. You've both provided some interesting insight into the world of the uber high end world of HiFi. I know I probably didn't bring much to the discussion but hopefully you got something out of me.

Thought I'd put up my gear list after all that talk. It isn't anything esoteric but I have a tendancy to use pro audio equipment for home use as I like to tear the roof off now and then and I personally have not heard an amplifier to sound worse because it had too much grunt.

 

CD: Denon DCM-460 had this since new and used basically everyday. I probably won't upgrade until it stops working.

Receiver: Marantz SR5400, also had this for a long time, used as a DAC and pre-amp only and only in 2 channel mode.

Active X-Over: Ashley XR-2001, only using in 2 way stereo mode.

Power Amp: 2x Yamaha P4500 both are only used on channel "A" to minimize power supply losses. These amps are THX rated for commercial cinema use and with a cooling fan mod run very quiet.

Speakers: Krix Lyrix, quite a few years old now.

Sub amp: Crown Xti 2000, I do use it's DSP for some eqing.

Subs: Twin custom designed 225 liter enclosures with P-Audio SD-18 (18") drivers bass reflex tuned to 24hz.

Headphones: AKG K701.

 

Treated the room somewhat with some large fiberglass panels and square foam panels here and there and thick curtains to one side, but the subs still need some eqing to tame room modes and cancellations at the seating position.

Zack, minimizing reading error is given and universally agreed. I would venture to say that conductivity plays a role too. As afore-mentioned, over the years, I find digital gears are super sensitive to electricity. Something as simple as using a printer upstairs would makes a difference in the sound. It would seem logical that if the signal flows better through the cable, the sound would be better. So the metal used in the cable and connectors and the way it is grounded/terminated would also play a role.

 

Joe, thanks very much for your input. In fact, thanks everyone for their input. Esoteric hi-fi can be a fairly quirky hobby as some "ways" of improving sound can be more bizarre than snake oil. It's great to share one's interest and passion in music. Not everyone has to agree with everyone else but so long as all is done in good spirit (and it has been so), it makes this thread all worth its while.

It would seem logical that if the signal flows better through the cable, the sound would be better. So the metal used in the cable and connectors and the way it is grounded/terminated would also play a role.

 

Yeah I would agree in regards to an analog cable (to a point) - but I am having trouble seeing how this would relate to a digital cable... especially over such a short length - and bearing in mind a bog standard usb cable is not anywhere near approaching the limits of it's bandwidth transmitting stereo digital audio.

 

Also not sure I would agree that logic would dictate that a digital signal flowing 'better' would sound 'better'... surely it's the order of the 0's and 1's arriving at the converter that dictate the sound?

 

My very basic understanding of usb data transmission is that data is sent in packets and checked - and packets resent if not arrived OK.

 

It's funny you tossed that USB cable anecdote in and it has certainly intrigued me! I know you weren't championing the Absolute Lunacy cable as a worthwhile purchase but you did say you could hear an improvement and that's what I find interesting for many reasons. I won't pretend I'm not extremely sceptical but I wouldn't dismiss it outright until I could experience it for myself. I really want to hear one now :-) )

 

And where do the benefits of this AL usb cable stop? Would a digital image sent over the AL usb cable 'look' better?

 

Anyway, enjoying the debate

^I am not an EE so perhaps Fellippe can chime in on the science behind this.

 

While I concur that it is, fundamentally, a transmissions of 0's and 1's, ideally speaking, fibre optics would provide the best transmission. And yet, you would, among others here, concur that we have seen and heard and experienced that most digital connections are still done electrically rather than optically . In the early 90's, AT&T glass fibre optic cable were THE cable for digital transmission due to the true and optimal glass quality. What happened thereafter I do not know but it was clearly superior than Toslink. Using that as an analogy, light is light, perhaps luminosity plays a role but it's still just between being lit and being darken. And yet there was clearly an audible difference. Again, using car's transmission as an analogy, DSG is clearly superior to manual in terms of speed, smoothness and ease of operations. It's only shortfalls are perhaps servicing when it breaks and the added weight. So why do we prefer a manual transmission then? Other questionable issues include B&W photos vs. colour ones, mechanical watches vs. digital ones etc... There are things in life that involves the human factor rather than from a pure academic perspective. No one is entirely correct in an absolute sense.

 

I understand your skepticism especially with your background. Just a slight bit of info. on my background, I played in a symphony orchestra for 6 years so it is safe to say that I know how musical instruments should sound and whether their image, sizes and voicing are correct or not in a proper concert hall or in a studio. I would encourage you to remain impartial and audition some of the cables. Whatever your findings would be is fine by me but hopefully it will offer a new perspective to you views. I too had enjoyed the debate.

Not sure what these are but my friend has 6 of them and they look expensive. He said this was his cheap stereo, and his million dollar system is being moved in