View Full Version : The Loudness War is Over
attilio7
15-01-2013, 09:18
Not a new article, but new to me. So I thought it might also be new to some of you.
http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802/
Not a new article, but new to me. So I thought it might also be new to some of you.
http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802/
Link needs editing, here you go:
http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802/"]http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802
attilio7
15-01-2013, 09:30
Link needs editing, here you go:
http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802/"]http://mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802
I have just fixed it, thanks. your on the ball this morning :lol:
As a response to the article, it seems to be saying a couple of things:
1. the loudness war is over;
2. The only format which will dominate or be largely available of a few years is digitally stored file media
In response to the first point, the loudness war isn't over, the author is just imagining it, or rather saying that the game's up and people will want to maximise the benefits of digitally stored music.
As to the second point, I sincerely hope that digital downloads are not the future as I for one do not want to embrace using a laptop or PC every time I want to listen to music or acquire more. I'm not alone ;)
I think that the dominant format for pop music will ultimately be digital downloads but serious groups will also want to market an album surely?
"Vinyl is dead, long live vinyl" seems to have been the real epitaph for the future of LP sales, which, like B&W film, have remained a niche market, nonetheless, a market increasingly growing in strength.
CD sales will die out eventually but more due to the fact that no-one will make CDPs any more if the market share drops and that's largely down to how PC drives develop. Once the DVD/CDR drawers on PC's vanish is probably when well see the end of cheaply made mass produced CD drives, and cheap CDPs. Vinyl, ironically, may probably be around longer than CDs as a result of this and the huge market remaining for cartridges, tonearms, wiring, decks, supports etc etc.
Damn....that means I'll have to embrace the digital age at some point! Can anyone tell me if I can rip all of my CDs and play them back without recourse to needing a phone that has "apps" and/or a pc/laptop (which we hope will never have any place in the selection and replay of music for us....).
That's the rub isn't it...with technology and market driven forces, choice will disappear. You'll have a choice of many devices that all do the same thing in different colours in different boxes. Perhaps it's best I transcribe everything to vinyl before its too late!
attilio7
15-01-2013, 09:47
So, my understanding of the article is we may be able in the not to distant future using a media player say, like JRiver with the appropriate plugin. Rip and then rescue all those cds where we like the music but can't enjoy them because of the OTT use of compression, destroying the dynamic range and squashing the life and soul out of the music.
attilio7
15-01-2013, 10:05
"As to the second point, I sincerely hope that digital downloads are not the future as I for one do not want to embrace using a laptop or PC every time I want to listen to music or acquire more. I'm not alone ;)"
Well good luck to you, I look forward to a music file based future.
I will still keep my vinyl replay system. For nostalgic reasons it's an important part of my past. I have had my Linn since 1984 and still enjoy using it. But sound quality wise file replay is superior.
That's not what the article is saying though. It's basically saying that as high- rez downloads become more common, so are the clever algorithms which automatically match sound levels whilst taking into account dynamic range of the music.
We're already at the point hardware-wise where the solutions of tomorrow are with us today and are just waiting for software to catch up. More importantly, we're just waiting for a more user friendly and universal human interface to be developed or standardised. Its possible today to have your emails, computer files,games console,radio and TV all stored in one or two boxes and routed via the TV screen for menus, displays etc with wireless internet connections and LANs etc. What's missing is a universal remote control in the form of a tablet....oh wait, we have the ipad and now several other alternatives albeit at a cost!
I for one do not want to go down the route of disposable and very expensive interface tools, one box time limited solutions or anything else that changes how I listen to music and how I can influence the sound. Ultimately, if the hifi market as it stands shrinks, it will be consumed by the PC/PC media market and ironically whilst the software and means to exploit it improves, the hardware needed downstream may shrink in choice (read "quality"). Who knows. Vive la difference as far as various formats are concerned because there's a lot to be said for the competition and choice making SQ and format flexibility choices which are still widely user decided. Losing this I feel will ultimately damage the industry and hifi as we know it today will become a thing of the past.
attilio7
15-01-2013, 10:27
Of course your viewpoint is understandable.I would not expect otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progress and would embrace a digital box that connected to my amp with controls meaning that no PC's were necessary to operate it (Unitiserve or similar which allows ripping and playback of CDs without unnecessary PC intervention) but there is a risk that it could be just a transitory period solution unless demand for traditional hifi separates remains with us, irrespective of the format used. Hence maintaining currently available formats has got to be good long term. Music replay quality standards are really what need to be universally addressed first before we wave goodby to any current formats but perhaps that's utopia.
Vive la difference as far as various formats are concerned because there's a lot to be said for the competition and choice making SQ and format flexibility choices which are still widely user decided. Losing this I feel will ultimately damage the industry and hifi as we know it today will become a thing of the past. Anyone wanting the death of a decent format and wants to rush headlong into a digital future should perhaps stop, take a breath and ask themselves is it just the digital storage and replay they want or do they really want to see the death of all other formats, and with that, the more far reaching market conclusions to hifi, or is it just the format they want to see made universal but to keep everything else as-is?
attilio7
15-01-2013, 10:54
I can assure you it gives me no please hearing of the sad news concerning HMV.
And the many job loses which may entail if they do not find a buyer.
Even if they do, it's just a stay of execution
That business model is now obsolete. The future is not about keeping formats which are no longer relevant to modern life. It should be about the variety and choice in music. The artist can sell direct to the customer.
Haselsh1
15-01-2013, 11:04
"But sound quality wise file replay is superior.
File replay is NOT superior. It is merely different.
attilio7
15-01-2013, 11:16
File replay is NOT superior. It is merely different.
Just to clarify, you are not saying it's inferior to vinyl or cd, just different?
I can assure you it gives me no please hearing of the sad news concerning HMV.
And the many job loses which may entail if they do not find a buyer.
Even if they do, it's just a stay of execution
That business model is now obsolete. The future is not about keeping formats which are no longer relevant to modern life. It should be about the variety and choice in music. The artist can sell direct to the customer.
In what way are CDs and Lps not relevant to today's life? Sure, they're less convenient for some, so it's more a convenience thing, but relevant? Of course they're relevant!
If you read what was written you'll see, with the utmost respect, that you have missed the (valid IMHO) points being made.
As for file stored music being better quality, that's not true. Define "quality". They may have higher resolution potential, but quality is entirely down to how the original file was mastered and engineered in the first place. Just because you have a hig res file storage does not mean that all the music contained therein is hi res uncompressed. Its no less a format than the CD in many ways hence my previous points about the recording (and mastering) standard needing to be addressed.
Spectral Morn
15-01-2013, 11:38
I can assure you it gives me no please hearing of the sad news concerning HMV.
And the many job loses which may entail if they do not find a buyer.
Even if they do, it's just a stay of execution
That business model is now obsolete. The future is not about keeping formats which are no longer relevant to modern life. It should be about the variety and choice in music. The artist can sell direct to the customer.
Many of those formats are still relevant and still to enough people to be viable all be it on a smaller scale.
Having played around with HD files and computer audio recently I don't see it as significantly changing my preference for physical formats both from a handling point of view and sound quality.
Re Loudness I don't see this as going away as its down to the way music is being Mastered in the final stage and that is being dictated in most cases by the record companies who do it because they think it makes music sound better (lol) and because they think the lowest common denominator listeners (the majority) prefer it that way. Regardless of whether its a physical product or a download. And the idea of using a computer program as an attempt to sort that out well until I see and hear it I am very skeptical about how well it might work.
As an aside.....
The problem as I see it with HMV is rather than offering a more specialized service to keep customers like myself they went for the lowest common denominator which didn't work. They reduced their vinyl stock (ironic considering the increase in demand), reduced the overall stock of CDs and the genres that sold well for them were reduced. To my mind the stuff that did not sell should have been reduced and maximizing that which did would have made more sense. This might of course have been different region to region.
They then created mini Dixon/Currys stores 'The Technology Zone' which in my view was a crazy move because near most HMV pitches those types of retailers already existed and sell that type of product better.
The dumbing down of HMV staff (mostly) i.e lack of specialist knowledge also didn't help.
I think HMV could have survived but not adapting their model correctly ultimately killed them.
Locally Head ( its a bit like Fopp in vibe) an independent shop has gone from strength to strength because its model is working and it has managed to not only do well but when it was away (having closed due to losing its pitch) a campaign was set up to bring it back. I can't see many caring if HMV goes in the same way.
Regards Neil
attilio7
15-01-2013, 11:39
In what way are CDs and Lps not relevant to today's As for file stored music being better quality, that's not true. Define "quality".
I did not say that, I said file replay. Example when I have ripped one of my cd's to my laptop and then replayed it through my system. It sounds better to me, I do not use the cd player anymore.
I personally remain unconvinced, by hi-res files.
Spectral Morn
15-01-2013, 11:42
In what way are CDs and Lps not relevant to today's life? Sure, they're less convenient for some, so it's more a convenience thing, but relevant? Of course they're relevant!
If you read what was written you'll see, with the utmost respect, that you have missed the (valid IMHO) points being made.
As for file stored music being better quality, that's not true. Define "quality". They may have higher resolution potential, but quality is entirely down to how the original file was mastered and engineered in the first place. Just because you have a hig res file storage does not mean that all the music contained therein is hi res uncompressed. Its no less a format than the CD in many ways hence my previous points about the recording (and mastering) standard needing to be addressed.
Well said I agree.
Regards Neil
attilio7
15-01-2013, 11:46
Well said I agree.
Regards Neil
Well so do I, never said otherwise :rolleyes:
attilio7
15-01-2013, 12:02
Reffc said
"In what way are CDs and Lps not relevant to today's life? Sure, they're less convenient for some, so it's more a convenience thing, but relevant? Of course they're relevant!"
Not to the young people, they are the future. I am old, I suspect that you are old, or a very strange young person. So that makes me a strange old person:eek:
I think that the ultimate fate of HMV was less to do with them embracing digital downloads and more to do with them failing to embrace on-line sales. people tend to think of Amazon as the place to go for CD bargains or music, when HMV had the head start with an exceptionally strong brand. Their whole business model was stuck in bricks and mortar which was never going to end well for them unfortunately. Of course, they also need(ed) to develop their own branded download market too.
Reffc said
"In what way are CDs and Lps not relevant to today's life? Sure, they're less convenient for some, so it's more a convenience thing, but relevant? Of course they're relevant!"
Not to the young people, they are the future.
Your responses do seem full of contradiction. A few posts earlier, you said
"I did not say that, I said file replay. Example when I have ripped one of my cd's to my laptop and then replayed it through my system. It sounds better to me, I do not use the cd player anymore.
I personally remain unconvinced, by hi-res files.
So which is it to be? CD/LP are dead or are they relevant?
Spectral Morn
15-01-2013, 12:08
I think that the ultimate fate of HMV was less to do with them embracing digital downloads and more to do with them failing to embrace on-line sales. people tend to think of Amazon as the place to go for CD bargains or music, when HMV had the head start with an exceptionally strong brand. Their whole business model was stuck in bricks and mortar which was never going to end well for them unfortunately. Of course, they also need(ed) to develop their own branded download market too.
Agreed though I tend to prefer bricks and mortar over online. I only buy non mainstream and hard to get stuff online.
attilio7
15-01-2013, 12:14
Your responses do seem full of contradiction. A few posts earlier, you said
So which is it to be? CD/LP are dead or are they relevant?:scratch:
attilio7
15-01-2013, 12:25
May, I suggest we get back to the OP point about the possibility of rescuing overly compressed cd's.
Haselsh1
15-01-2013, 12:26
I will not pay money for something that does not physically exist. I do not for one minute believe they are BETTER quality and never will in my lifetime. There is no way they are going to easily exceed the sound quality of an SACD at the current time and as I have already stated, they are merely different and NOT superior.
Rothchild
15-01-2013, 19:12
May, I suggest we get back to the OP point about the possibility of rescuing overly compressed cd's.
Nothing will 'fix' these recordings, their brokeness is 'baked in'.
'IF' the music production industry adopts EBU R128 (http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness) and there's a move to things like Replay gain centred around -23LUFS it's not the end of the end of loudness war per se, but it might mark the beginning of the end, because the upshot of it will be that recordings with limited dynamic range won't be able to effectively bypass your volume knob (which is what overlimiting is doing). Overly mastered recordings will sound wimpy against recordings mastered to make best use of the dynamic range available in digital recording (at the same perceived volume). This move of the goalposts will hopefully improve the quality of digital mastering to focus on punch and volume rather than just plain volume.
Example when I have ripped one of my cd's to my laptop and then replayed it through my system. It sounds better to me, I do not use the cd player anymore.
Being an advocate of file based audio I agree and disagree with the above statement. I had this exact same experience, but it depends *entirely* on what you are comparing your file based player against? Yes it is possible to achieve excellent results from a music server/computer when pitted against mid range CDP's and even players costing over £2-3,000, but to say it sounds better than CD playback per se is IMO wrong. The level of quality depends entirely on the source components used ;)
Spectral Morn
15-01-2013, 21:39
Being an advocate of file based audio I agree and disagree with the above statement. I had this exact same experience, but it depends *entirely* on what you are comparing your file based player against? Yes it is possible to achieve excellent results from a music server/computer when pitted against mid range CDP's and even players costing over £2-3,000, but to say it sounds better than CD playback per se is IMO wrong. The level of quality depends entirely on the source components used ;)
Well said.
Regards Neil
+1. Sensible points, as usual, Tim :)
Steaming music, through a quality file-based source, can sound fantastic (I know, I've heard it), but then equally, as you correctly say, so can CD - providing that your CDP is good enough to show what the format is *really* capable of! THAT is the crux of the matter...!!
My view, and I've held it for a long time, is that the biggest percentage of people who've embraced file-based audio, for sound quality reasons (leaving aside its other obvious benefits), did so because they'd never heard a *really* good CDP or separate transport and DAC, which unfortunately don't come cheap (think £5-6k minimum).
The fact is, when you compare the best file-based music sources, with the best CD transport mechanisms, both using the same DAC and test music, the sonic differences are minimal - and THAT is ONLY because it takes a CDP with a very high-quality transport mechanism to be able to reproduce music as accurately as a quality file-based source, i.e. the errors introduced by the mechanical process of a laser reading a disc, and the resulting sonic degradation, has been minimised to near-inaudible levels, which isn't the case with lesser CDPs (or DVD players, as some folks use)!!!
This fact came flooding home when I listened recently to my mate's Rega Isis CDP. When playing the same music, either from a disc, or streamed via its USB (and a Zotac unit), with both processes using the Rega's in-built DAC, the sound was near-identical, which for me was a first with computer audio (as before that I'd always heard top-notch CDPs outperform streamers), but then the Isis costs £6.5k! ;)
It could also be said the other way round, as in that was the first time I'd heard a computer audio source match the performance of a top-notch CDP. I guess that, commercially, that's the level it takes for me to be able to live with a file-based source and DAC. However, no doubt some clever person here could build something which sounded as good as the Isis (as a music streamer), for much less, which is the benefit of the DIY-route, provided that you're sufficiently 'into' the whole process and know exactly what you're doing.
Marco.
Exactly Marco, I reckon I could see of most things people would rate in WTF as a good CDP, but if some folk here brought out their big guns, then I would be struggling indeed. And I don't have 5k to spend on a player either :(
I adopted it purely on the sound quality I could afford within my available budget and because I wanted the convenience as well, so there was/is (as always) a compromise, unless you have unlimited funds.
Indeed, Tim, but it's important that these facts are always remembered when people start the usual computer audio vs. CDPs arguments, or spout the 'my Sqeezebox pisses all over any CDP' pish, because it's ill-informed nonsense, or at best, wishful thinking! ;)
Marco.
attilio7
16-01-2013, 08:04
for sound quality reasons[/B] (leaving aside its other obvious benefits), did so because they'd never heard a *really* good CDP or separate transport and DAC, which unfortunately don't come cheap (think £5-6k minimum).
The fact is, when you compare the best file-based music sources, with the best CD transport mechanisms, both using the same DAC and test music, the sonic differences are minimal - and THAT is ONLY because it takes a CDP with a very high-quality transport mechanism to be able to reproduce music as accurately as a quality file-based source, i.e, the errors introduced by the mechanical process of a laser reading a disc, and the resulting sonic degradation, has been minimised to near-inaudible levels, which isn't the case with lesser CDPs!!!
This fact came flooding home when I listened recently to my mate's Rega Isis CDP. When playing the same music, either from a disc, or streamed via its USB, with both processes using the Rega's in-built DAC, the sound was near-identical, which for me was a first with computer audio, but then the Isis costs £6.5k! ;)
Marco.
Hello Marco,
You are obviously a open-minded person, someone who respects the best of the past. But is willing accept new technology if there is a genuine improvement in SQ. I also have, and use iconic 50+ year old technology. Some of my equipment is documented within my signature.
When I connected my HP G70 laptop to my system, I was amazed at the smooth rich sound with bass extension that I have not experienced with my Tannoy TD-8s before. At first I thought oh well it's probably just the high frequency's being rolled off. And after a couple of hours of new toy syndrome, I will become bored. This did not happen, in fact I realized that high frequency instruments had a more natural highly detailed presentation, not just a cold clanking metallic sound.
The CD player that I have is the Shanling cd-t100 cost £1600 maybe six years ago. I also have a Dennon SA-CD player. Now this is just using the headphone output of the laptop so I am not even using a external Dac.
So my next purchase is an external Dac. Rega do a very nice one at £500,does anyone know if this is the same as in the Isis? :eyebrows:
So my question is, how inferior would my file based setup be using the Rega Dac, to the £6500 Isis?
Even if it got within 90% of the Isis performance at a cost saving of circa £5500.
That is the reason I have embraced file based replay.
Ciao, Attilio. Com'e stai oggi? Spero che tutto e bene :)
You are obviously a open-minded person, someone who respects the best of the past. But is willing accept new technology if there is a genuine improvement in SQ.
You've hit the nail on the head, amigo. That is *exactly* my philosophy with audio! I will only embrace the use of new technology IF, to my ears, it represents a significant sonic upgrade (I care not a jot about convenience), over the previous technology that it replaced.
That's it in a nutshell, and why after all these years, I'm still using an 'ancient' (but judiciously modified with the best of modern components) Sony transport and DAC, from the late 1980s! The best TDA 1541-based multi-bit DACs just sound *SO* different from their bitstream counterparts. Done well, they're unbeatable, IMO.
If you examine the components making up rest of my system (providing you recognise their heritage), you'll also see how much GENUINE progress in audio (in terms of out-and-out sonic performance) I think has been made in the last 40-odd years... ;)
What's the point in changing your equipment, if what it's being replaced with isn't 'no-brainer' better, sonically, just to be trendy? I've never been one for following the herd, or worried about not having the 'latest and greatest gadget' - and aren't about to change now!!
When I connected my HP G70 laptop to my system, I was amazed at the smooth rich sound with bass extension that I have not experienced with my Tannoy TD-8s before. At first I thought oh well it's probably just the high frequency's being rolled off. And after a couple of hours of new toy syndrome, I will become bored. This did not happen, in fact I realized that high frequency instruments had a more natural highly detailed presentation, not just a cold clanking metallic sound.
The CD player that I have is the Shanling cd-t100 cost £1600 maybe six years ago. I also have a Dennon SA-CD player.
Yup, I don't doubt for one second your experience. However, for me, it simply shows that, despite both players not being cheap, neither your Denon or the Shanling were good enough to compete with a quality streamer.
Like I said before, experience shows that CDPs come into their own once a manufacturer has enough funds in his or her budget to ensure that what's 'under the hood', as it were, is of sufficient quality to guarantee GENUINE top-notch performance, which isn't the case with lesser players, and so the results you've heard are inevitable, but it doesn't have to be that way. In my experience, once you clear the £5k price barrier, that's when the best CDPs come into their own. Of course, if you know which ones they are, they can also be purchased second-hand, for much less...
Contrary to what some may think, it really does take a significant amount of money and/or expertise to commercially produce a truly great integrated CD player, as indeed is also the case with turntables and speakers. Those are not items where, if one is genuinely looking to achieve top-notch performance, one can skimp on quality. A genuine and thorough understanding, by the designer, of the technology involved is also of paramount importance.
So my next purchase is an external Dac. Rega do a very nice one at £500,does anyone know if this is the same as in the Isis? :eyebrows:
That would be interesting to know. It *may* be the same DAC (although I suspect not identically), but the internal power supply arrangements will most certainly be different - and anyone who knows anything about hi-fi, knows how massively influential PSUs are in the sound produced by any piece of audio equipment. It's also what adds noughts onto the price tag!
So my question is, how inferior would my file based setup be using the Rega Dac, to the £6500 Isis? Even if it got within 90% of the Isis performance at a cost saving of circa £5500. That is the reason I have embraced file based replay.
Lol... Well, due to the law of diminishing returns, the approach you've chosen and/or are contemplating, may get you within 90% of the performance of the Isis, but for some people (me included) that extra 10%, in terms of its importance in allowing music to be as faithfully reproduced as possible, is too important to live without! ;)
Marco.
Having heard both good quality computer based files played via SBT and other interfaces and good quality CDPs, the main reasons most people seem to embrace file based music is for convenience or because its the latest "must have" technology.
The only reason I can see that there's any SQ difference between a CD that's been ripped to file and a CD played via a good CDP is down to the DAC used. DACs do differ in SQ so its just as valid IMHO to say that comparing one file based music system against another will equally yield SQ differences just as it does between CDPs.
VFM, CDP has it every day of the week. You can still get reasonably good SQ from even a cheap DVD player for under £40! The best costs money but rarely do you have to spend more than £2K to £3K for exceptional CDP quality. From what I gather, you can spend more than that on a file based system and still have to pay for quality downloads, so the main point again of having it is for convenience (all music catalogued into a single box) and to future proof against changing formats. That's a false security though because software will change and boxes become obsolescent (otherwise the market will die).
To say that file based music is superior in SQ to a CDP is not correct as you have pointed out Marco
There's room for both and both can be embraced without rejecting one in favour of another. CDP will remain, as previously mentioned, as long as CD drives continue to be mass produced for the computer market. That may not be too far into the future, but for those of us with large CDP collections, who prefer having a physical and tangable medium that cannot be corrupted or lost and don't have to play with ipads or laptops every time we simply want to listen to music, long live the CDP and vinyl records ;)
Haselsh1
16-01-2013, 10:03
Having heard both good quality computer based files played via SBT and other interfaces and good quality CDPs, the main reasons most people seem to embrace file based music is for convenience or because its the latest "must have" technology.
I think in terms of 'must have' technology, digital photography is yet another point in question. It is digital, it is new so it must be better. I hate to disappoint you all but it isn't...! It is merely different. How many people now can't read a book that consists of pages made of paper...? Why can't they...?
Hi-Fi is exactly the same. I choose to listen to vinyl, new and old, simply because it sounds so superior to my ears. It isn't superior of course, it is simply different in its approach to reproducing sound. I do not do anything because it is merely convenient, I never have done. I use film because to me, it produces a superior result to digital especially in black and white where digital is appalling and I do analogue in Hi-Fi because I don't want my experience to simply be convenient. It is an experience after all not just some noise whilst I have a bath.
attilio7
16-01-2013, 10:04
Ciao Marco,sto molto bene, grazie:)
I am actually Glasgow born:cool: :lol: but probably like yourself from Italian decent.
I have now lived in Italy for nearly two years.
This setup would be just the start, I can then add the refinements, such as regulated liner PSUs, media players, the one I have on trial at the moment is JRiver MC18, which I like very much, I also have Foobar and EAC.
So I can still pursue that extra 10%, at a final cost considerably south of £6500. :)
Hi Paul,
Having heard both good quality computer based files played via SBT and other interfaces and good quality CDPs, the main reasons most people seem to embrace file based music is for convenience or because its the latest "must have" technology.
Yup, I'd agree with that, but I think it's the case that for some people, with limited funds to spend on equipment, it's also their route to achieving the biggest bang for their buck.
The only reason I can see that there's any SQ difference between a CD that's been ripped to file and a CD played via a good CDP is down to the DAC used.
Sorry, on that I completely disagree. I hope you're not one of these close-minded (and seriously misguided) 'all noughts and ones are the same', daftees! ;)
Yes, technically that may be the case, but as usual in audio it's not quite as simple as that. This is because the end result one hears from a CDP, playing music in real time, is influenced by various internal interactions, mechanical and electrical, occurring within said CDP, some of which I'm not even sure we recognise or at least fully understand yet.....
Ultimately, it's all about maintaining the integrity of the music signal within the operating environment of the circuit inside a CDP, or in any digital replay system, and that job is much harder to achieve than some may think! Your worst enemy is noise, and there are all sorts of different types, which arise from many different sources, causing all sorts of different problems - and so the solutions to those problems are equally as diverse.
The process involves a degree of lateral thinking (an ability to think 'outside the box') and the understanding that attending to the obvious represents only part of the story - an understanding which is sadly lacking in those who think that digital audio is already a 'sorted' entity!
Extensive experience has shown me that transport mechanism quality, and most importantly, the mechanical environment in which said mechanism resides (alienating the unit as far as possible from the harmful effects of vibration, which is why, for example, die-cast metal transport mechs are superior to plastic ones - I could go on here, but I digress), is massively influential on the results achieved, sonically, with any CD player.
Essentially, as I've outlined already, it's all about maximising isolation against vibration and reducing noise, as far as possible, within the digital domain - and transport mechanism quality plays a big part in that. DAC quality aside, the reason why the best CDPs get this more right than others is simply because the respective designers have paid more attention to addressing the issue of isolation than others, simply because they've been given more money to do so - and the results, in a suitably revealing system, are easily heard! :exactly:
To say that file based music is superior in SQ to a CDP is not correct as you have pointed out Marco.
That's not what I said, Paul. What I said is that it *can*, with the right kit in place, sound superior in SQ to an inferior CDP, and vice versa. Equally, however, file-based systems are not the universal 'sonic panacea', to combat the sonic evils of digital music reproduction, that some claim to be the case.
There's room for both and both can be embraced without rejecting one in favour of another.
Absolutely, but I have certain sonic standards to maintain, as I'm sure you also do, which I won't go below when selecting a piece of equipment or building a system.
CDP will remain, as previously mentioned, as long as CD drives continue to be mass produced for the computer market.
Yes, and precisely for that reason said CDPs will continue to sound crap (as, for audio purposes, those drives are shit), in comparison with those used on the best CDPs, from the golden era and today's more advanced players, and thus the sound produced will likely be worse than that of your average music streamer, which returns us neatly to the original argument!! ;)
That may not be too far into the future, but for those of us with large CDP collections, who prefer having a physical and tangable medium that cannot be corrupted or lost and don't have to play with ipads or laptops every time we simply want to listen to music, long live the CDP and vinyl records
Hear, hear! However, I'm not averse to installing a music streamer which, sonically, can compete with my CD transport and DAC, that introduces me to new music on Spotify, etc, which I can then (hopefully) buy on CD or vinyl. Ultimately, it's about combining the best of old and new technologies, not shunning one or the other because of an illogical, and often unjustified, bias! :)
Marco.
I think in terms of 'must have' technology, digital photography is yet another point in question. It is digital, it is new so it must be better. I hate to disappoint you all but it isn't...! It is merely different. How many people now can't read a book that consists of pages made of paper...? Why can't they...?
Hi-Fi is exactly the same. I choose to listen to vinyl, new and old, simply because it sounds so superior to my ears. It isn't superior of course, it is simply different in its approach to reproducing sound. I do not do anything because it is merely convenient, I never have done. I use film because to me, it produces a superior result to digital especially in black and white where digital is appalling and I do analogue in Hi-Fi because I don't want my experience to simply be convenient. It is an experience after all not just some noise whilst I have a bath.
:clap: :clap:
Your last sentence, in particular, is so very apt. Unfortunately, in today's 'mad rush' materialistic world, people no longer have the time to enjoy the nice things in life, which is why quality (in many things, not just with hi-fi) is frequently traded for convenience. It's all rather sad! :(
Marco.
attilio7
16-01-2013, 10:16
Paul and Shaun, I respect your preferences. In fact I also still use vinyl, and have a valve amp. So I have a foot in both the inconvenience and convenience camps.
Haselsh1
16-01-2013, 10:37
:clap: :clap:
Your last sentence, in particular, is so very apt. Unfortunately, in today's 'mad rush' materialistic world, people no longer have the time to enjoy the nice things in life, which is why quality (in many things, not just with hi-fi) is frequently traded for convenience. It's all rather sad! :(
Marco.
'Quality'. That is a key word here Marco. My experience with a music session is a quality experience. I have music sessions like in the days of old. I do not walk down the street listening to a noise and I do not play an MP3 whilst I have a bath. I have a quality music experience which lasts for hours and sometimes involves more people than just myself and my partner. These experiences are not always analogue either, often involving the use of compact discs but that I am afraid is as far as I go. I, like most of us here, love collecting and therefore have a collection of vinyl and CD's. I do not collect invisible data on a hard drive. That is not a collection I'm afraid.
Haselsh1
16-01-2013, 10:38
Paul and Shaun, I respect your preferences. In fact I also still use vinyl, and have a valve amp. So I have a foot in both the inconvenience and convenience camps.
You have some wonderful valve amplifiers and speakers to choose from in Italy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progress and would embrace a digital box that connected to my amp with controls meaning that no PC's were necessary to operate it (Unitiserve or similar which allows ripping and playback of CDs without unnecessary PC intervention) but there is a risk that it could be just a transitory period solution unless demand for traditional hifi separates remains with us, irrespective of the format used.
I'm led to believe that Arcam are introducing a DAC with Airplay built in, so no PC required just your Apple device....I'm sure support for Android devices etc will be introduced at some point.
attilio7
16-01-2013, 10:57
You have some wonderful valve amplifiers and speakers to choose from in Italy.
Absolutely right, I have never seen so many valve amps, under one roof as at the Roma Hi-Fi High-End show last year. And Italian Audiophiles are just as nut's as us :lol: loads of great vinyl on sale too.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.