stop-spinning;610963 Wrote:
I always like it when someone says you will easily achieve a high-end
sound on a shoe string budget!
Does everyone on this thread concur with that? I mean, if you asked a
Hi-Fi retailer the same thing they will reply you get what you pay
for. Or, that's why you
You have to remember that any playback really has to transport you to
some state of audio nirvana via sonics , musical memories , meaning of
words , tunes etc.. all really in the mind.
All audio is coloured , from the recording to the playback/room etc -
so in essence ppl are choosing the
stop-spinning;610966 Wrote:
I guess when you think about it (not that I'm an expert) - the best DAC
in the world is no DAC, with the sound being analogue from start to
finish without the need to convert from a digital domain to analogue -
so no need to worry about those jitter nasties if you
On 14/02/11 12:17, cliveb wrote:
stop-spinning;610966 Wrote:
I guess when you think about it (not that I'm an expert) - the best DAC
in the world is no DAC, with the sound being analogue from start to
finish without the need to convert from a digital domain to analogue -
so no need to
vett93;609724 Wrote:
I have a Transporter and a SB3. They are connected via Ethernet. I'd
like to turn off the wireless module to reduce noise floor.
On the Transporter, I also want to turn off the digital input and
output modules.
Thanks.
Just remove the WiFi module and the
JohnSwenson;610916 Wrote:
...The vinyl system I have will wipe the floor with a Touch on its own,
but with a REALLY good DAC I'd say its neck and neck right now.
BTW the vinyl system I have would cost slightly over $5K today. (the
table is 23 years old, it was a lot less when I bought it
Robin Bowes;610996 Wrote:
On 14/02/11 12:17, cliveb wrote:
Analogue equipment has jitter - it's called wow flutter. And it's
orders of magnitude worse than the jitter levels of even quite
modest
digital equipment.
I'm not a vinyl apologist, but that's not quite the whole picture.
duke43j;611018 Wrote:
Since Ive only gotten this one direct answer to my original question
(not surprising since this is a digital forum), let me ask my question
another way.
Is there anyone out there that has a good quality
turntable/cartridge/preamp but thinks their digital input sounds
duke43j;611018 Wrote:
Since Ive only gotten this one direct answer to my original question
(not surprising since this is a digital forum), let me ask my question
another way.
Is there anyone out there that has a good quality
turntable/cartridge/preamp but thinks their digital input
pski;610720 Wrote:
so you've been gullible for a long time. Anything else?
P
pski;610934 Wrote:
why should we care? Stupid is as stupid does.
P
What intemperate and uncivil comments to two thoughtful and informative
posts!
Guido F.
--
guidof
*Front End*: Marantz TT 15S1
firedog;610975 Wrote:
For some, the Touch into a $500 DAC is high-end. For others, the Touch
isn't good enough and they also have a specialized transport and a
$5000 DAC. Would I call a Touch into a $500 DAC high-end? No, but most
people I know would, and would think that A Touch + DAC + PC
It could also be different volume levels between the two. Without
capturing the digital output (record with a PC sound card that can take
digital in) it's hard to tell.
The other option is you could use
http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm to check the output past
the benchmark.
--
rgro;610514 Wrote:
Well he didn't swear and, in attempting to take the high road in my
interpretation, he's asking Phil, essentially, as to why someone might
take the time to do what Phil's doing? One would hope that MCR asked
because he is genuinely interested in the answer. If not, I
duke43j;611018 Wrote:
Is there anyone out there that has a good quality
turntable/cartridge/preamp but thinks their digital input sounds
better?
I have about $6000 sunk into my current analog rig*. I've been
collecting records on and off for about 35 years.
I'm very happy with the sound I
soundcheck;610537 Wrote:
I second your position. Everybody who has done some research and lab
work knows that things wouldn't work the way Phil approaches the
subject.
And even those who've done some serious research know that it is very
easy to drive things to your advantage. All that you
Robin Bowes;610396 Wrote:
On 11/02/11 17:58, magiccarpetride wrote:
(the usual load of emotive, paranoid rubbish)
Once again, do you really think that someone else expressing an
opposing
opinion, or doubting your own opinion constitutes an attack?
As far as I can see, *you* are the
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring equipment,
preferably with buttons and
That depends entirely on what you mean by definitely hear a
difference. As has been discussed many times here before the human
brain is a curious thing.
Logically, if one is hearing a difference but there isn't actually one,
which can very easily happen, then there is no difference that can be
andynormancx;611129 Wrote:
Logically, if one is hearing a difference but there isn't actually one,
which can very easily happen, then there is no difference that can be
measured.
That's the gist of my question: when you say but there isn't actually
one, on whose authority are you claiming
No I was talking about the logical situation when there really is no
difference but one thinks they can here one.
Can you not see the logical argument ?
Or do you really believe that not a single human has ever made a
change to a hifi setup which made no actual change yet they thought
they
I had a job at a company no longer in business, Voice of Music (union
kill them). My job was to repair audio equipment being rejected by QA.
They QAed every piece of stereo equipment.
We used tone generators and a Ballantine meters. The meter was used to
measure distortion at a given reference
andynormancx;611139 Wrote:
No I was talking about the logical situation when there really is no
difference but one thinks they can here one.
Can you not see the logical argument ?
Or do you really believe that not a single human has ever made a
change to a hifi setup which made no
On 14/02/11 22:31, magiccarpetride wrote:
In other words, there is ALWAYS a difference. From moment to moment,
things constantly change. Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said
that a man cannot enter the same river twice.
See what I'm saying? Even if you haven't changed any component in
vs27;611140 Wrote:
I had a job at a company no longer in business, Voice of Music (union
kill them). My job was to repair audio equipment being rejected by QA.
They QAed every piece of stereo equipment.
We used tone generators and a Ballantine meters. The meter was used to
measure
Robin Bowes;611152 Wrote:
Therefore, there are obviously going to be situations where you really
do *hear* something different, but there has been no *physical*
change.
ie. the difference is all in your mind. That doesn't make it any less
real than a physical change but goes some way to
magiccarpetride;611141 Wrote:
Even if you haven't changed any component in your system, and are
listening to the same track again, something else in your surroundings
has changed (including your own conditions), and that change influences
how you experience the second replay of the same
mlsstl;611160 Wrote:
The problem with your illustration is it has nothing to do with audio
equipment. Rather it deals with epistemological issues that are better
suited to philosophical discussions than measurement.
Your subjective experience, influenced by time of day, your mood, your
magiccarpetride;611154 Wrote:
Interesting explanation. So, in the measuring environment you've
described here, were you guys able to measure the differences in the
soundstage that two audio systems project? Like, you could have 2 audio
systems playing the same track at the exact same
m1abrams;611162 Wrote:
Soundstage is almost always a result of timing shift in various
frequencies. This can be measured.
OK, but how? How do you propose measuring that?
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile:
magiccarpetride;611163 Wrote:
OK, but how? How do you propose measuring that?
Use a frequency sweep and measure the time delay for the different
frequency. Not hard stuff here.
--
m1abrams
m1abrams's Profile:
magiccarpetride;68 Wrote:
Exactly my point. Just because something can be measured, doesn't mean
it's worth spending time measuring it. Every now and then we get hit by
some stupid factoid, such as last year, Americans have consumed 45
million gallons of mayonnaise. Yes, it's a
As it was said, our brain is under the constant influence of the
countless factors manipulating our experience of hearing. We simply
can't hear with only our eardrums. If that was possible, I think, we
would be able to hear very objectively and measure real changes in
the sound. Unfortunately or
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
sc53;611105 Wrote:
I bought an Airport Express over the weekend just for fun. The bass with
the Airport Express is all boomy ...I noticed this immediately as well. Funny
effect. I simply turned down
my bass tone control until it matched the tonality of the same music
played via CD.
The
Rick58;611173 Wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't believe that qualities such as soundstage,
depth of image, palpability, etc., are able to be measured using
methodologies discussed here.
IF they were, why aren't companies/review mags publishing such results?
I value imaging, depth of
magiccarpetride;611161 Wrote:
If we disregard the epistemological aspect for a moment (even though we
cannot really disregard it, but humor me on this one anyway), and focus
on what you call 'physical state of the stereo equipment', even there
the physical state is not the same from moment
m1abrams;611185 Wrote:
Depth of image, and palpability really have little meaning when it comes
to reproducing sound.Huh? I think the perception of the recording space and
how real the
instruments/voices sound has a very large meaning. At least to me they
do! These qualities are, I believe,
Rick58;611193 Wrote:
I haven't ever seen a definitive measurement that quantifies how deep a
soundstage is presented by any equipment in any room, or explains why
item 'A' provides a deeper soundstage than item 'B' in the same room
and with the same ancillary equipment. Actually, the closest
Rick58;611198 Wrote:
... there is nothing in the NP 2.0's measured performance that reveals
how it manages to throw that enormous soundstage.
That's not surprising to me. I'm not as impressed with Atkinson's
measurement techniques as some other folks are.
--
Daverz
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
Soundstage, depth and height cannot be measured because they do not
exist except as constructs within the human mind when listening to a
stereo system that is trying to create the illusion that they do
exist.
NB I'm not talking about Soundfield recording/playback here, just
normal stereo.
--
42 matches
Mail list logo
