PDA

View Full Version : Digital replay. Have I experienced an epiphany, or just a healthy dose of reality?



Neil McCauley
29-05-2008, 17:25
Hello again.

Is it daft to spend over £4k on a digital replay device?

I'm asking, because of two very recent experiences which have caused me to reflect on the reality of ‘value’ in a market sector which is rapidly evolving – by which I mean that quality is increasing while retail prices are declining.

From my perspective, this is unique in its acceleration in the audiophile arena. Only digital replay has experienced this quality : price ratio change so rapidly. You won’t find it with speakers of amps to the same degree. Anyway …

Experience #1

I plugged in some of my old and cheap spare CD players into one of my state-of-the-art systems. Frankly, given the vintage and the pitiful prices for these discontinued units on e-bay (various Denon, Yamaha and Meridian and so on), the sheer value was extraordinary. My top of the line CD replay was (and I guess that because of my job I know precisely what to listen for) superior – but not dramatically so – in this context.

Admittedly comparing new to used skews the perception somewhat, to say nothing of the outdated thinking that the source is always ALWAYS (sometimes shrieked in a Glaswegian accent) the primary consideration. But, the surprise is what it is.

Experience #2

My CDs, recorded onto my Apple Mac using a very inexpensive on-board (recent replacement) CD/DVD reader/writer is very good indeed. To anyone other than the seasoned and dedicated listener, I now doubt if the differences between the Mac and the CD played through an expensive new CD player would be noticeable nor significant.

My conclusions – so far ….

Is that Stereonow Ltd might soon evolve into being a specialist in speakers (Harbeth only) and amplification (LFD only) and might give up selling any digital replay items. Obviously I’ll keep my state-of-the-art CD machine for replay purposes during demos.

In a nutshell then …

I think the writing is on the wall for the retail of expensive CD machines. But I might be wrong. It happens.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thank you

HP
enquiries@Stereonow.co.uk

Mike
29-05-2008, 18:00
Brilliant post Howard!!!

:lolsign:

I'm just going to sit back and watch this one! I wouldn't be supprised if the fur starts flying sometime quite soon.

:trust:

Filterlab
29-05-2008, 18:32
Well, to put a very short post up. I did a back to back comparison, my iMac and Apogee 24/192 DAC playing imported uncompressed files (AIFF) versus a dCS Puccini (£5k). I also did a comparison against my MF A3.5 & Tri-Vista 21 DAC (£3,500) and a GamuT CD3 (£4,400).

See my signature.

Mr. C
29-05-2008, 19:51
Rob,

Did you do the comparison in your own system or at a dealers demo room?
Are you using the high def format downloads or just the so called high quality mp3 files at 24 bit?
At the moment, I have yet to hear any so called cd quality down load get close to a half reasonable cd player. If it can I would look at issues in your system first!
We have a extensive hdd collection and set up (1.5 terrabytes/dedicated PC, trick drives, raid back up etc) super clean power supplies to all the kit involved, a very special dac, and using the normal quality downloads, it can not hold a candle to X-03se
When switching to the high res downloads, it is a very different matter LOL.
However the true 24bit 96khz/176.4khz downloads with a quality dac, (not using usb lol) can produce eye watering results for people who covet vinyl so greatly.
Maybe JC was on to something, he just needed some quality equipment to support his very informed if a little OTT rantings :-)
Having a quality dac with a bandwidth (24/192khz) will give you the opportunity to explore both your red-book and download potential.
The Best of both worlds, those with dac's not being able to accept these limits will be disadvantaged.
So in answer to Howard's question, I do see a decline in the high end cd market, but not a disappearance, after all black pizza's are still going strong!

tfarney
29-05-2008, 19:55
Howard, I'm assuming that when you play music from your Mac that you are running it through an outboard DAC? And given your profession and experience I would further assume that it is at least as good as Filterlab's Duet? Yes? Then that is really your source. No CD player, no matter how stable its transport, is going to be much more stable than RAM. No moving parts is pretty hard to beat for stability. So the DAC is the source. There are some mighty expensive audiophile DACs out there, and these days, to further your discussion, I'm not quite sure I get that.

I got out of the audiophile world for about 20 years, but I never quite left pro audio. I hadn't made any music in a studio in quite awhile, though, until recently. A project I was working on needed a couple of minutes of simple acoustic guitar, and because I play one of those, it was cheaper, by far, to record something than it was to pay for needledrop. I went into a studio I know that specializes in commercial projects, but records music on the side. All digital. I recorded my little bit, then the engineer played it back to me through his big Tannoy mid-field monitors before he added any sweetening.

It sounded like my guitar. Let me make sure you completely understand what I'm saying. It didn't sound like a guitar or even a '03 Gibson Custom Shop Original Jumbo with an Adirondack spruce top. It sounded like my guitar. I play it ever day. I know it as well as the sweet tones of my wife's voice (hi hon.). I just can't imagine a better reference than that.

What was controlling the timing of all the digital devices and doing all the conversion in that studio? Apogee AD and DA converters operating under the orders of an Apogee Big Ben studio clock.

Have you priced one of those? Street prices are well under $1500 USD. That's the clock that controls the studio that makes the music we listen to. If we're paying more than that for sources to play music back on, something is amiss. MHO. YMMV.

Filterlab's Duet? $500. And Apogee is one of those companies that trickles its technology down very quickly. When the duet came out, the word in recording circles was that while it may lack features, flexibility and balanced outs, the damned thing sounded as good as Apogee's studio stuff. For $500. That's just nuts.

Tim

Mr. C
29-05-2008, 20:04
Tim,

Did you ever compare a BB apogee to a Drawmer master clock, quiet an ear opener and some what cheaper in the UK too! (for once!)
However I do agree 100% correct timing is very import in total digital system collation, in fact its essential imho. (even with slaved transport/dac clocks txco's/ trick pll's etc.)
A dedicated word clock just brings it all together verbaitum.
We use a rare earth element stable clock to sync both the CDP and the dac (which are separate in the system, the dac just for the PC audio).
Interesting times are afoot :-)

tfarney
29-05-2008, 20:17
Tim,

Did you ever compare a BB apogee to a Drawmer master clock, quiet an ear opener and some what cheaper in the UK too! (for once!)
However I do agree 100% correct timing is very import in total digital system collation, in fact its essential imho. (even with slaved transport/dac clocks txco's/ trick pll's etc.)
A dedicated word clock just brings it all together verbaitum.
We use a rare earth element stable clock to sync both the CDP and the dac (which are separate in the system, the dac just for the PC audio).
Interesting times are afoot :-)

I haven't heard a Drawmer, but I'm not the guy who builds or operates the studio, just one of the many who go in there and pay to use the thing. I have done a lot of commercial production -- voice overs, mixing audio tracks, that sort of thing -- in recent years, but I'm not sure I had laid down any music with my own instruments since tape (I'm very, very old). It was an eye-opener. I swear it sounded like my very instrument was coming out of the studio walls. Tubes are lovely. Warmth is wonderful. This was just stunningly real. (I want those big Tannoys in my house!)

Of course it was a very simple task, a single acoustic guitar. A bigger challenge may have yielded very different results.

Tim

Filterlab
29-05-2008, 20:53
Rob,

Did you do the comparison in your own system or at a dealers demo room?

At home.



Are you using the high def format downloads or just the so called high quality mp3 files at 24 bit?

MP3! No way, files are AIFF (as per my explanation and signature) - completely lossless imported from a CD, no compression whatsoever. I'm very familiar with this format as it's the format I use when recording my own music. I also keep everything in this format when I master on to CD as well. I never ever download any music and I never use any lossy compression. Also I don't use USB to my DAC, I use TOSlink currently although when Apogee release the Leopard drivers I may give Firewire a whirl, but I've a sneaky suspicion that it won't be as good.

I know it sounds absurd that a £5k player (and a £4.4k player) should not sound as good, but this is a genuine result heard in my own system at my own home. My current source destroyed my MF combo which I had for a while and loved a lot, and not 'only just' either.


Filterlab's Duet? $500.

Mine isn't the Duet, it's the Mini-DAC. Unfortunately the exchange rates are not brilliant and the Mini-DAC retails at £1k (although I paid less for mine ;)), still a freakin' bargain though!

You have definitely hit the nail on the head Tim. RAM is always more stable than anything with moving parts (ok, the HD spins, but only to block dump data) and the DAC [u]IS[/us] the source rather than the transport. This is where I feel computers have the advantage over CD players. I'm not sure the audiophile community will make the switch too hastily though, CD players are a tried and tested hi-fi source and there are some very very good CD players on the market, and not all necessarily cost £4,000 and up.

Filterlab
29-05-2008, 20:57
I must add though that personally my Mac based set-up is better for me, other ears and opinions may differ, but have a listen first eh.

Filterlab
29-05-2008, 21:20
I'm sure it's not entirely your fault mate. :) The strength of the pound is the problem at the moment.

tfarney
29-05-2008, 21:24
Mine isn't the Duet, it's the Mini-DAC. Unfortunately the exchange rates are not brilliant and the Mini-DAC retails at £1k (although I paid less for mine ;)), still a freakin' bargain though!



I would think that with the dollar in the toilet, the exchange rate would be looking pretty good. The Duet is gorgeous minimalist art and is reported to sound great. A part of me really wants one. Another part (the cheap part) doesn't need the functionality, just wants to use rips of Redbook CDs anyway and figures upsampling is dubious...

Tim

SteveW
29-05-2008, 21:58
Brilliant thread chaps.
Especially when its free of the diatribes we have had recently.
Really makes me want to investigate and experiment further. Just what these forums should do.
Thankyou.

NRG
29-05-2008, 22:19
Well...like it or loathe it the message may have been put in a much more palatable for audiophile way but it's still the same message that certain banned members have been spouting on here and elsewhere. ;)

Neil McCauley
29-05-2008, 22:21
Howard, I'm assuming that when you play music from your Mac that you are running it through an outboard DAC? And given your profession and experience I would further assume that it is at least as good as Filterlab's Duet
Tim

Err, no. Just the bog-standard, on-board, as supplied, Apple DAC! Sorry to disappoint you guys.

Spare a passing though for me thought as the retailer if you'd be so kind. Imagine what I'm going through, as the weeks go by, as the realisation of what’s happening starts to set in. Just as well that I haven't sold a CD player for a few weeks. Not sure my conscience could take it.

Business on the other gear is very good indeed though. Fortunately.

Neil McCauley
29-05-2008, 22:37
Stereonow has not just bitten the bullet, but has swallowed it too!

Hmm. What a night it’s been. Since I posed the question earlier tonight on this forum, I have taken careful note of the replies. Thank you all.

I’ve phoned a few customers and considered the thoughts of a few forum members who have contacted me directly and privately. And then I spoke to my two sons; both over 30 and at the entry level age for my target market. They’ve both grown up in a house littered with actual and close to state-of-the-art audio systems. They can’t see the point of stand-alone audiophile digital replay devices. And they haven’t done for years. And they think I'm bonkers to continue with that type of product.

So – no more self delusion! And so as of tonight, I'm going to be just a loudspeaker (Harbeth), vinyl (Funk), amplifier (LFD) and power cleansing (PS Audio) retailer. No more digital replay devices on sale. Just one, a good one, for demo purposes only. Might even look for a brilliant but cheap Accuphase on the German e-Bay site. Much cheaper than the ‘UK-As-Treasure-Island” UK retail prices!

http://search.ebay.co.uk/ws/search/SaleSearch?sofocus=bs&satitle=Accuphase&sacat=293%26catref%3DC5&fbd=1&dfsp=1&from=R6&nojspr=y&pfid=0&fswc=1&few=&saprclo=&saprchi=&fss=0&saslop=1&sasl=&fls=4%26floc%3D1&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D3&salic=3&saatc=3&sadis=200&fpos=N13+4RJ&fsct=&sacur=0&sacqyop=ge&sacqy=&sabfmts=0&saobfmts=exsif&ga10244=10425&saslt=2&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&sabdlo=&sabdhi=&saaff=afdefault&afepn=&customid=&afmp=&fsop=3%26fsoo%3D1&fcl=3&frpp=200

Henceforth I’ll be advising my customers as to which “Previously cherished” CD machines can be bought from e-Bay to match the LFD/Harbeth combinations they have bought and will continue to buy from me.

I'm very happy with this decision.

My thanks to all of you who have overtly and covertly provided me with the material on which I’ve been able to base my decision.

Sincerely

HP.

Filterlab
29-05-2008, 22:53
I have found the iMac output specifications for the optical output:

During playback of a 1KHz, full-scale sine wave (S/PDIF output format, 44.1KHz output sample rate, 24-bit sample depth, unless otherwise specified) the digital audio output has the following nominal specifications:

Jack Type: 3.5mm Optical Jack
Output Data Formats: S/PDIF (IEC60958-3), AC3
Output Sample Rates: 32KHz, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 64KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz
Bits per Sample: 16 or 24 (S/PDIF),16 (AC3)
Frequency Response: 20Hz – 20KHz, +/-0dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): >130dB
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD+N): <-130dB (0.00003%)
Channel Separation: >130dB

Good specs.

tfarney
30-05-2008, 02:38
Err, no. Just the bog-standard, on-board, as supplied, Apple DAC! Sorry to disappoint you guys.

Spare a passing though for me thought as the retailer if you'd be so kind. Imagine what I'm going through, as the weeks go by, as the realisation of what’s happening starts to set in. Just as well that I haven't sold a CD player for a few weeks. Not sure my conscience could take it.

Business on the other gear is very good indeed though. Fortunately.

Well, I'm a little surprised, but not shocked. The sonics coming out of my aging iBook G4 are surprisingly good. And quite quiet. I really only got the processing out of the Mac because I thought I was supposed to, to tell the truth, and when I did, I got a bit of clarity, I think, but I suspect that was some warmth built into the output stage of the Mac, not its DAC. And then I also figured maybe the rest of my system just wasn't resolving enough to show the difference. It was Mac>70s Harman Kardon integrated (A-402)>Senn HD580s.

Be careful who you talk to about this, Howard. You could completely blow your audiophile credentials.

Tim

tfarney
30-05-2008, 02:41
Well...like it or loathe it the message may have been put in a much more palatable for audiophile way but it's still the same message that certain banned members have been spouting on here and elsewhere. ;)

The new kid is clueless. Do tell.

Tim

SteveW
30-05-2008, 06:52
Well...like it or loathe it the message may have been put in a much more palatable for audiophile way but it's still the same message that certain banned members have been spouting on here and elsewhere. ;)
Th same message in terms of computer music is the way of the future...just not the same execution of that message.The words bull and china shops spring to mind.
tfarney..the banned chap(s) were fervent supporters of adm9's. No problem in that, just hijacked every thread in support of the 'cause'. Funnily enough, its still my intention to get a pair ..
I too use an ageing G4 powerbook..mini jack out from the audio out. I don't think this machine has optical.Plus an airport express into my kitchen system which picks up the itunes library from the same machine. Sounds pretty good in those secondary systems..but now looking to get something into the main one...hence the interest.

SteveW
30-05-2008, 07:05
Hi Howard
Just amazing how quickly the change in music replay is happening.
Can't blame you for your decision. Ahead of the field I'd say. Woolies have pulled out of CD singles. How long before CD albums disappear from the hi street.

Can I ask you a question though...If you won't be selling CD players, will you be also looking into selling streaming devices? or using them to compliment your cd demo machines?

cheers

Steve

Neil McCauley
30-05-2008, 07:10
Be careful who you talk to about this, Howard. You could completely blow your audiophile credentials.

Tim

Were you slightly tongue in cheek re this Tim, or perhaps serious?

If the latter, then I must confess that I'm not clear as to how me stating the truth (as I hear it) might be commercially detrimental. I'm interested in learning more – if you’d care to expand on the quote. Thanks.

Sincerely, and possibly in this instance, naively …

HP.

Marco
30-05-2008, 07:31
Great discussion this, guys (Howard - nice one ;)).

I'm a bit busy just now but will contribute in detail later. Safe to say though that I pretty much agree with the consensus of opinion so far in that lossless streaming digital replay, done properly (as outlined) with a top-notch DAC, in my experience outperforms *ANY* CD player. When a digital signal is reproduced accordingly I can't see any reason why the numerous mechanical interfaces present in any CD player could possibly improve the sound - in fact they are more likely to get in the way.

However there will always be a place for top-notch CDPs for those with large CD collections who can't be arsed importing them to a computer hard drive. Thing is, though, "top-notch" doesn't necessarily mean 'expensive', or even new...

More later!

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 07:54
Were you slightly tongue in cheek re this Tim, or perhaps serious?

:lol:

I think tongue-in-cheek on that one Howard. ;)

A lot of audiophiles will need some convincing of computer's ability to produce audiophile level sound and some may well frown at the thought for a while to come yet, however a demo should suitably prove that it is possible. I think for a lot of 'high-enders' the thought of computer audio is the sticking point rather than the tangible experience.

Neil McCauley
30-05-2008, 08:22
You've summed up my thoughts entirely.

I sit on the fence – with a foot in both camps so to speak. I'm an audiophile retailer, and yet I believe I can see things from a consumer's perspective, usually.

As for Stereonow, I won't be demoing my Apple Mac as source. Not worth the hassle and in any event I'm not in the computer business. I use 'em - but I've no idea what makes 'em work. I remain happy in this ignorance. Really!

My own thoughts on this topic, beyond what I've said elsewhere on this forum are entirely irrelevant. That's because I am powerless against market forces.

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 08:38
Rob,


Sorry I did not see the AIFF file in your signature :doh:
Back to the crux of the question, have you ever tried the high res downloads at all? (bit for bit masters).
The ripped cd even when done with a AIFF, is still only the basic 16 bit 44.1khz format. just curious if you have tried it.
Your sound card/mac may use an ASRC to increase the bits to 24 and up-sample the 44.1khz, however the raw format is redbook, even if lossless.
As for the tos-link does it not have a limited bandwidth 48K?, I agree with a lot of PC based systems it is the lesser of the evils for digital data transmission from a noisy RF/EMI spewing pc, however you have the data conversion from electrical to light, then back again. There are other ways of cracking this nut.
Think though, stream the totally *bit for bit prefect* manufacturers phrasing objectivity sense here please :lol: that has a raw format of 24bit/176.4Khz, straight into your dac, no need for signal manipulation, the results are quite something, and this is just the start. Then tie in your dac to a WBC , this raises the bar by a serious level. Or better still construct a dac with this designed in!
The fun has been going on for a while :mental:

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 08:54
Rob,have you ever tried the high res downloads at all? (bit for bit masters). The ripped cd even when done with a AIFF, is still only the basic 16 bit 44.1khz format. just curious if you have tried it. Your sound card/mac may use an ASRC to increase the bits to 24 and up-sample the 44.1khz, however the raw format is redbook, even if lossless.

Not yet, although it's on my list of things to try as well as HRx. My CD rips consist of a mix of 16bit/44.1Khz and upsampled 24bit/48Khz - my choice for each depends on the individual recording; some sound better in the former, some in the latter (despite the original always being 16/44.1 - upsampled to 176.4Khz anyway). However this means that I do a listening test for each CD I import, although it only takes a few minutes of listening to find the more ideal rate.


As for the tos-link does it not have a limited bandwidth 48K?, I agree with a lot of PC based systems it is the lesser of the evils for digital data transmission from a noisy RF/EMI spewing pc, however you have the data conversion from electrical to light, then back again. There are other ways of cracking this nut. Think though, stream the totally *bit for bit perfect* manufacturers phrasing objectivity sense here please :lol: that has a raw format of 24bit/176.4Khz, straight into your dac, no need for signal manipulation, the results are quite something, and this is just the start.

TOSLink does have a maximum sample rate transfer of 48Khz, but my DAC internally upsamples to 192Khz with any 24bit signal. However I'm reverting back to 16bit/44.1Khz this evening as over the weeks I've felt that it sounds a little more natural. In any case the DAC will adapt to pretty much any signal present and will comfortably handle 24bit/176.4Khz (handy for the HRx recordings).

At the mo the Apogee electrical drivers are not available for OSX 10.5 but as soon as they are I will grab them and hook up with Firewire. I'll do plenty of listening tests to determine which is more suitable (as usual) and I'll use whichever fairs better. I'm not fussed which settings / connections etc etc I use and even if the DAC / computer / software is upsampling and reverting the signal all over the place, I'll settle on whichever sounds better. :)

Marco
30-05-2008, 08:55
A lot of audiophiles will need some convincing of computer's ability to produce audiophile level sound and some may well frown at the thought for a while to come yet, however a demo should suitably prove that it is possible. I think for a lot of 'high-enders' the thought of computer audio is the sticking point rather than the tangible experience.


I think you're right, Rob. For some the cachet of owning a Naim CDS 555, DCS, Audio Research, Krell, or whatever, and having it gloriously showcased on top of their rack for their friends and neighbours to see and coo over, is too important to lose and be replaced by some 'plastic computer'. For these types of people 'status symbols' are much more important in hi-fi than music so they will always want a 'box' to show off. I abhor this type of mentality but nevertheless it exists :mental:

However, one sticking point for me with computer audio, and it's got nothing to do with sound quality, is the soulless way in which one accesses our favourite music and the way it is treated rather like a disposable commodity. A file will never be as visually enticing or attractive as an album cover - and no, a picture of it on a monitor is not the same thing! I treasure my 'physical' musical collection - all the vinyl albums, CDs; their covers and sleeve notes and the memories that go with them, and this 'human', tactile experience is completely missing with computer audio.

The 'ritual', for example, of easing out a beautifully pressed slab of vinyl from its decorative gatefold sleeve, reading the label, looking at the artwork, placing the record on your turntable, and listening to the stylus tracking the lead-in groove before music commences (and the subsequent very high quality reproduction of it) is something that is very important to me and which no computer audio set-up, no matter how technically excellent, can ever replicate. So for me I will always own a CDP and T/T for that reason. My eventual computer audio set-up will simply be a high quality and (very convenient) third source of music, but the experience of using it will never beat the 'real thing', as described, on a purely human level.

Marco.

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 09:07
Rob,

Thanks for the reply, that was point, your DAC has an ASRC inside it, which ever way you look at it is manipulating the base signal by adding (usually 9 bits of dither) and rolling around the sampling freq, to hide the nasties (most modern dac's and cdp's do this, so I am not singling yours out honest!).
However most studio recordings are done at 32 bit and 384khz or 24bit/192khz (Raw formats). If you use these high res formats into your dac you will be grinning for ear to ear.

Marco, I do concur with a lot of your sentiments, pride of ownership etc.
However, I do believe you do like to enlighten us about your 'Quite simply one of the best CDPs ever made...' from time to time :-)

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 09:13
Rob,

Try these also http://www.itrax.com/

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 09:14
I have to definitely agree with you Marco. There is nothing like the tactility of a music collection, certainly putting a record on has a real sense of occasion, moreso than a CD player. Of course this is lost completely with a computer, in the case of iTunes all I have to do is type the first letter and then scroll to the album/track and it's playing immediately (accompanied by the picture of course).

That's why I still buy CDs and import them - at least I have the collection. Oddly I had a moments madness this week where I thought about importing all my CDs, doing three copies of the data (one live, two back-up) and then selling the whole lot.

Ten minutes later I was over that daft idea!

Marco
30-05-2008, 09:15
LOL. Indeed, Tony. That's 'cos it is. But the Sony is far from alone - there are others of its ilk from CD's golden era, which has long since passed :)

You can't beat a well implemented TDA1541 S1 or S2, as concurred by many discerning music lovers and audiophiles. The battleship build transport is just the icing on the cake ;)

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 09:25
Rob,

Thanks for the reply, that was point, your DAC has an ASRC inside it, which ever way you look at it is manipulating the base signal by adding (usually 9 bits of dither) and rolling around the sampling freq, to hide the nasties (most modern dac's and cdp's do this, so I am not singling yours out honest!).

:) Indeed. Oddly though, some tracks sound a lot better once they've been mucked about with digitally. My favourite group is Air - they're stuff sounds great once it's been imported at 24/48 (from a CD), reverted and then upsampled to an output of 24/48 and then upsampled again to 24/192 by the DAC. As I've said before, maybe it's similar to the effect of a valve producing harmonic distortion. Then again a lot of music sounds better being imported at 16/44.1 and output at 16/44.1



However most studio recordings are done at 32 bit and 384khz or 24bit/192khz (Raw formats). If you use these high res formats into your dac you will be grinning for ear to ear.

I must dig further into this stuff, there's so much to computer audio to discover (and it's fun along the way!), even better if it gets me grinning!



Rob,

Try these also http://www.itrax.com/

Cheers, I'll have a look! :)

Marco
30-05-2008, 09:53
My favourite group is Air - they're stuff sounds great once it's been imported at 24/48 (from a CD), reverted and then upsampled to an output of 24/48 and then upsampled again to 24/192 by the DAC.


Mmm... I'm not saying I wouldn't like your DAC, Rob, but I do know that I dislike the effect of up-sampling. To my ears the process produces an effect which makes music sound unnatural and 'processed' by enveloping it in an artificial 'sheen', which makes everything sound 'nice' regardless if it is meant to sound nice or not. Up-sampling CDPs/DACs appear (based on my experience so far) to trade solidity and 'grit' for superficial detail retrieval and 'hi-fi nicety'.

I'm not saying that's how your DAC sounds, because I haven't heard it, but it's the reason why I dislike DCS players, for example, as they use up-sampling and to my ears all possess the sonic signature I have described. I like the presentation of plain old 'vanilla' Red Book CD/digital done well with no buggering about with the signal or 'artificial additives' added, which for me always sounds more natural and 'solid'. Straight Red Book ticks less hi-fi boxes, for sure, but for me its effect is infinitely more musical.

Even over-sampling has a detrimental effect on the music, IMO. If you listen to an Audio Note CDP, for example, which features no over-sampling or up-sampling, and compare it to one which does, the sonic signature/musical presentation of both is entirely different. The AN CDP is not perfect, far from it, but its way with music is more natural and realistic even if it’s a little rough around the edges, IMO.

'Keep it simple stupid' is a phrase that I feel suits hi-fi perfectly on many occasions. As they say less is often more...

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 10:10
...produces an effect which makes music sound unnatural and 'processed' by enveloping it in an artificial 'sheen'...

That's Air's style though. ;)

Marco
30-05-2008, 10:16
I have to definitely agree with you Marco. There is nothing like the tactility of a music collection, certainly putting a record on has a real sense of occasion, moreso than a CD player. Of course this is lost completely with a computer...


I think this is why (in general) computer audio often appeals more to the 'science types' than more artistic types like you or I, as all these guys seem to be interested in is the noughts and ones being present and correct, and not the emotional connection between music and the listener - it's just a 'sound' to them, and why I could never relate to Ashley or JC's type of mentality. They seem to assess sound (and hi-fi) in the way of an emotionless computer instead of as normal human beings. Maybe they're really robots? :lol:

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 10:19
Could you please rephrase that in binary.

As I mentioned earlier, I will revert to 16/44.1 in and out this evening, give things another listen. :)

Marco
30-05-2008, 10:21
That's Air's style though. ;)


Yeah, but you don't want all your albums sounding like Air!

Incidentally, I can't stop playing 'Moon Safari' after buying the 10th anniversary special edition. It reminded me of how bloody good it is :)

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 10:24
Yeah, but you don't want all your albums sounding like Air!

:lol: Why not? I like them. :)

You're right of course, which is why I must experiment further. The whole computer audio thing is deep and massively variable in so many ways.


Incidentally, I can't stop playing 'Moon Safari' after buying the 10th anniversary special edition. It reminded me of how bloody good it is :)

I must get hold of this, has it been remastered?

Marco
30-05-2008, 10:33
I'm not sure, mate. I'll have to read the notes. However the recording does seem to be better than the original album I bought years ago.

Regarding your DAC comparisons, I wouldn't come to any definitive conclusions either way. Like you say, there are many variables to consider. Also, your Apogee may have been configured (in terms of design) to sound best in up-sampling mode. I believe Steve prefers a halfway house between the two with his Bel Canto, which may have as much to do with the particular presentation of his system than anything else. I suspect though that the only true way to compare the effect of both processes is to A/B/A your DAC in up-sampling mode against my DAS-R1 or some other genuine Red Book design in the same system. And there is also the implementation of both processes by the manufacturer to consider, which has a huge influence on the final sound.

Perhaps you could bring your Apogee with you for your forthcoming visit? :)

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 10:57
I dunno, weighs a tonne. :lol:

Yeah, I'll bring it along and you can have a listen. It'll handle pretty much everything that's thrown at it (in terms of signal).

purite audio
30-05-2008, 10:58
Marco isn't upsampling commonly used to increase the band width of the signal , I have had a couple of Audio Note Uk dacs and transports here, including an incredibly expensive signature DAC 5 ? The sound was soft and dull with both bass and h'f rolled off, I can see how this might appeal if your speakers are a bit harsh in the treble, not accusing the harbeths but many are!

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 11:01
As the high end roll-off is half of the upper sample rate limit I can see how more headroom would be offered by upsampling. However would it not be pseudo-headroom if the original signal is 44.1Khz?

Marco
30-05-2008, 11:15
Marco isn't upsampling commonly used to increase the band width of the signal , I have had a couple of Audio Note Uk dacs and transports here, including an incredibly expensive signature DAC 5 ? The sound was soft and dull with both bass and h'f rolled off, I can see how this might appeal if your speakers are a bit harsh in the treble, not accusing the harbeths but many are!

Hi Keith,

I may have read your post wrongly - are you saying that the AN DACs/transports sounded soft and dull? If so, that's completely contrary to my experience. At the Manchester hi-fi show I compared a 1.1x shown below with a DCS Scarlatti (yes indeed!) using the same CD (Bert Jansch 'The Black Swan') and it was the Scarlatti that sounded soft and dull! Also, my speakers are very neutral and highly revealing; indeed very similar to the Harbeth Monitor 40s Howard so cherishes. The SP100s are basically Spendor's version of the Monitor 40s, or perhaps it's the other
way round :)

http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/digital/cd_1.1x_01.shtml

Note the design principles used.

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 11:17
As the high end roll-off is half of the upper sample rate limit I can see how more headroom would be offered by upsampling. However would it not be pseudo-headroom if the original signal is 44.1Khz?

I like "pseudo-headroom". I would also say 'pseudo-resolution and detail retrieval', using high quality Red Book (properly implemented) as a benchmark...

Marco.

Filterlab
30-05-2008, 11:19
Not a real term, but I couldn't think of anything more apt. :)

Marco
30-05-2008, 11:27
I know but it gets the point across rather succinctly.

Marco.

purite audio
30-05-2008, 11:31
Marco Hi, yes it was an expensive AN dac 5 or 6 ? £28k retail with a 3 transport, looks like a biscuit tin, I auditioned a lot of dacs and cdps trying to find a good product to sell, my little ACK is filterless and that is not dull or soft, this was a few years ago before I got the horn!

Marco
30-05-2008, 11:41
Keith,

I've not heard their top models but the 1.1x, which I think was about £2k, sounded really 'crisp', detailed, and 'alive', whereas the Scarlatti was overtly euphonic, smooth, and rounded off in comparison, which considering the truly massive difference in cost was frankly astounding! There's definitely something in filterless DACs, IMO.

However undoubtedly the partnering equipment and how the Scarlatti was set-up had a significant bearing on the sound. I've heard it perform much better, although the artificial sounding signature up-sampling imposes on the final signal was still very much in evidence.

Marco.

purite audio
30-05-2008, 11:57
Marco Hi, it is so difficult, partnering equipment makes such a difference , Rav kindly lent me a Scarlatti and I thought it rather good, really good treble I thought, I invited around a couple of friends to listen to a Lavry 924, and MSB Platinum, DCS Scarlatti and a £500 Ack, and although they agreed there was more resolution with the expensive products, they both thought they would be happier living with the filterless ACK!

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 12:03
Marco,

being fair sir, your speakers are hardly revealing.

Marco
30-05-2008, 12:04
I'm not surprised, Keith. High resolution is desirable but only if the effect heard is faithful to the original source signal. I'm not sure the Scarlatti's way of music making is entirely natural. The filterless ACK more likely better embodies the 'less is more' assertion I made earlier.

Don't get me wrong the Scarlatti is undoubtedly a very fine CDP, but once your ears have become attuned to the signature of up-sampling, and can separate it from the music, it simply becomes annoying and superfluous to accuracy/involvement.

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 12:05
Marco,

being fair sir, your speakers are hardly revealing.


LOL! When was the last time you heard a pair of SP100s, and in what system?

Marco.

tfarney
30-05-2008, 12:38
Were you slightly tongue in cheek re this Tim, or perhaps serious?

If the latter, then I must confess that I'm not clear as to how me stating the truth (as I hear it) might be commercially detrimental. I'm interested in learning more – if you’d care to expand on the quote. Thanks.

Sincerely, and possibly in this instance, naively …

HP.

Tounge-in-cheek, Howard, but there are those, in a hobby like this, who will believe what they believe and hear what they hear, and your truth will not dissuade them. Instead, they will merely declare you a heretic. Hopefully none of them are among your customers.

Then there is the economics -- I'm assuming you make most of your money from service, not the retailing of products, but if I'm wrong, I'd keep a close eye on your amplifier business. The same technology that delivers sound straight out of the optical port of a $500 Mac Mini that competes with a $5,000 cdp is lurking in the dark places of the planet, building its evil amplification plans slowly, like the rising fires of Mordor, meaning to render silver wire, audiophile caps, hand wound transformers and exceedingly short and elegant signal paths a complete non-issue.

I have this dirt-cheap Chinese receiver build with the Equibit class D digital amps that were developed in Holland and are now owned by Texas Instruments. Feed it a digital signal and there is no analog signal path. Zip. Bits is bits, until it puts voltage on the speaker terminals. Feed it an analog signal and it immediately converts it to digital through a 24-bit AD converter, then runs the same path. Will it compete with that gorgeous copper and glass creation I drooled over in the "show your system" thread? In the critical midrange, no; most of us would call the mids lean and dry. But the control of transients is pretty remarkable. High frequency extension is good and not edgy. Bass control is absolute. And the noise, or complete lack thereof, is kind of scary. Which is not surprising given the absence of an analog signal path and the utter lack of opportunity for signal degradation.

Of course there is always jitter to contend with. I have a Cairn Terrier who can hear the path a fly is cutting through the air and leap into it to snap the poor bastard from life and the room. I'll ask him about jitter. :)

The peasants are pounding the front door with digital pitchforks. Me? I live in a single-wide trailer behind the Manor, waiting for the Lords to take out the garbage. I'm sifting through, and finding less and less of interest every day...

:smoking:

Tim

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 13:32
Marco,

This week in all, fairness, and with a very special valve system too, the gent uses these speakers now and again, because he cannot bear to part with them as in his own words 'he loves the nostalgia they re-crate for him' , although he uses something else for his main listening he was kind enough to hook them up for me and let me acclimatise to them.
His room shall we say is some what more substantial in volumetric capacity than your box room, so they can breathe properly and you are free to hear the cabinet colorations and drivers. However I can see and hear the appeal of these speakers with the right equipment, they can make a fair sound without too many obvious issues, fun factor too.
As for resolution and full range capabilities humm... long way shy, but that did not detract from the nice rounded involvement factor they generated.
I can see why the gent will not part with them, interestingly he prefers them over Tannoys and JBL's (which he has tried) so it just goes to show how we all have those certain sounds in our heads that we just enjoy more than others :-)

Marco
30-05-2008, 13:53
That's all fine and dandy, Tony, and I'm in no position to doubt what you heard, but it most certainly isn't what I hear with SP100s in my system :)

And were they definitely SP100s, not BC1s or perhaps even S100s (which are inferior)? Because SP100s sound nothing like BC1s!

And, please, less of the "box room" thing. My speaker/room combination works very well indeed, but you wouldn't know because you've never had the experience. Ask Steve. As such, I have no particular desire for a bigger room because I would lose more than I would gain in terms of the kind of presentation I like. I know because I've tried it.

The SP100s are true monitors and simply reproduce the given signal with as little coloration as possible - at least that's what mine do ;) The BBC and a number of studios seem to like them, too. I've lived with them for over six years and they never fail to show up differences in partnering equipment or any alterations I make to the system in terms of mains or cables.

What would you suggest I use? Those toppy sounding French things you sell? :lolsign:

Good as they are in other areas I couldn't live with their somewhat 'brightly lit' unnatural sounding treble, which is typical of French speakers. It's how the French like their hi-fi to sound and manufacturers voice it accordingly - neutral it is not. Triangle speakers exhibit similar sonic characteristics, although I prefer them to (most) Focals.

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 15:04
Well...like it or loathe it the message may have been put in a much more palatable for audiophile way but it's still the same message that certain banned members have been spouting on here and elsewhere.

Neal, you're absolutely right. Btw, you're very quiet these days!

The thing is though whatever way you cut it, ADM9s (the subject of the banned members "message") are merely a canapé, and not even a full hors d'oeuvre, into the world of computer audio. It is far from the pinnacle of what can be achieved in that area, despite the ramblings and monotonous lecturing of the deluded duo.

They're fine for less discerning listeners or in systems where the accent is on convenience as opposed to ultimate sonic performance. But for genuine enthusiasts who seek to go the extra mile with computer audio and streaming there are other systems which offer superior performance, particularly in the DAC area, as the Burr Brown units used in the ADM9s are definitely not up to the standard of Rob's Apogee, my Sony DAS-R1, and numerous other more expensive high-end standalone DACs, or perhaps also even some good D.I.Y designed ones. Regardless of what Ashley and JC would want people to believe, ADM9s are not the 'last word' in computer audio, and certainly not in hi-fi in general.

It was their pitching of the ADM9s as something way above what they truly represented that people here and elsewhere found unpalatable, and also downright ludicrous. Their condescending remarks and incredibly arrogant, 'we know better than anyone else' mantra, didn't help either.

Tim, if you want to become acquainted with the views of the 'AVI boys' then simply search on 'Ashley James', 'jcbrum' (aka 'evilpsycho666') or 'ADM9s'. I warn you though you'll need a thick skin to enable you to deflect their biased bullshit and blatant marketing agendas! ;)

Marco.

Mike
30-05-2008, 15:32
Marco,

I don't think that was the point Neil was making TBH.

Marco
30-05-2008, 15:46
Mike, I fully understand the point Neal was making and made reference to it. However I wanted to expand on the issue for the benefit of Tim who (thankfully) wasn't present during the 'AVI wars'.

Marco.

tfarney
30-05-2008, 15:51
And I thank you. Don't mind a good war, though. As long as I can stand back far enough to avoid being bloodied.

Tim

Mike
30-05-2008, 16:29
Mike, I fully understand the point Neal was making and made reference to it. However I wanted to expand on the issue for the benefit of Tim who (thankfully) wasn't present during the 'AVI wars'.

Marco.


Hi Marco,

It's not my place to speak for Neil, or anyone else for that matter, but from my own point of view I'm a little uncomfortable.

There is a hint of double standards about all this. One (ex)member of the forum proposed this very scenario and was more or less berated off the forum, and now another apparently more respected member raises the self same subject and the response is very different indeed. At least from some contributors.

Now, I know full well that a lot of the response to the now banned 'JC' was brought about by his own somewhat evangelical stance on these (and other related) matters, but something is not right here.

It is not for me to 'point the bone' and I will not be goaded into doing so, I'm going to keep my head behind the parapet here and just watch.

Cheers,
Mike.

BajaGringo
30-05-2008, 16:32
Hold on while I go grab some popcorn...

Mr. C
30-05-2008, 16:35
Marco,

If you say so, I am merely a seller of 'toppy' French rubbish :-)
Please forgive my observations oh valve guru and sloppy coloured English poor fitting box user :youtheman:

tfarney
30-05-2008, 16:44
I'm still not sure I understand what happened here. Were the proponents of the powered monitors with intregal dac suggesting that, to all but the very trained ear, a basic consumer audio quality dac is indistinguishable from audiophile dacs and cdps? That's what Howard seems to be suggesting (did I get that about right, Howard?). I'm not sure how that might be offensive. If you think you hear a clear difference it simply means, by Howard's definition, that you are a very discriminating and well-trained listener. It sounds like flattery to me.

Then again, I wasn't here for the war...

Oooo..."toppy French rubbish" and "sloppy colored English boxes"...Baja, would you grab me a box of that popcorn while you're in the lobby. No butter.

Tim

Marco
30-05-2008, 16:53
Hi Marco,

It's not my place to speak for Neil, or anyone else for that matter, but from my own point of view I'm a little uncomfortable.

There is a hint of double standards about all this. One (ex)member of the forum proposed this very scenario and was more or less berated off the forum, and now another apparently more respected member raises the self same subject and the response is very different indeed. At least from some contributors.

Now, I know full well that a lot of the response to the now banned 'JC' was brought about by his own somewhat evangelical stance on these (and other related) matters, but something is not right here.

It is not for me to 'point the bone' and I will not be goaded into doing so, I'm going to keep my head behind the parapet here and just watch.


Hi Mike,

I honestly have no idea what you mean. Please just say what you're thinking: being honest and open about things is always the best policy and certainly what we promote on AOS. If it's something you'd rather keep off of the public domain then PM or email me :)

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 17:06
Marco,

If you say so, I am merely a seller of 'toppy' French rubbish :-)
Please forgive my observations oh valve guru and sloppy coloured English poor fitting box user :youtheman:


LOL. Tony, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I think people often make the mistake of coming to a definitive conclusion about equipment or speakers as a result of one particular listening experience. How many times have you heard SP100s? You heard what you heard that day with the Spendors (I still don't know yet if they were SP100s) but it doesn't mean that in *fact* is what they are like.

You could say the same regarding my assertion about Focals, and you'd have a point, but then I've heard many examples of them over the years, in many different systems, from entry level models to the Utopia range, and a few of the new Beryllium tweeter models since, (Geoff Coleman from Acoustica used to use JM Labs almost exclusively when I worked in his shop so I got to know them very well) and whilst obviously sounding different, they all exhibit a similar signature at the top end. It undoubtedly gets better as you go up the range but the signature nevertheless exists.

Like I said, it's the way French speakers are voiced. If it's your thing then cool, but please don't TELL me that my SP100s aren't revealing when that's completely contrary to what I hear with them in my system and what I've enjoyed about them for the last six years :)

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 17:33
Tim,


I'm still not sure I understand what happened here. Were the proponents of the powered monitors with intregal dac suggesting that, to all but the very trained ear, a basic consumer audio quality dac is indistinguishable from audiophile dacs and cdps?


Yes, amongst other things, but mainly that AVI ADM9s represent the pinnacle of all hi-fi and outperform anything else, which is ridiculous considering the size of the speakers for starters. They also had a major agenda against traditional hi-fi, such as CDPs, valve amps and vinyl (although JC was a fan of 78s) such that I believe their views were disingenuous and deliberately designed to mislead people to further their own (in the case of Ashley) commercial interests. This is ultimately why they were banned as I will not allow this forum to be used as a vehicle for people to perpetrate their agendas, however JC was finally (permanently) banned because he was caught red-handed trolling under a pseudonym.

Regarding DACs, I don't think that's what Howard was saying. I think he meant that CDP transports are now superfluous to requirements given the accuracy and excellence of lossless streaming from a computer hard drive, which is what I've heard myself. A top-notch DAC is still needed in that scenario, certainly in my experience, as I've heard my Sony DAS-R1 completely outperform many modern and less expensive DACs such as those from Wolfson, etc, in the context of a computer audio set-up. The difference is obvious - you certainly don't need bat ears to hear it ;)

Marco.

Mike
30-05-2008, 17:47
Hi Mike,

I honestly have no idea what you mean. Please just say what you're thinking: being honest and open about things is always the best policy and certainly what we promote on AOS. If it's something you'd rather keep off of the public domain then PM or email me :)

Marco.

No!

Like I said....

I'm keeping out of it now. If others care to search the forum and make up their own minds, then that is up to them. It is just my own opinion that there is something of an 'imbalance' going on regarding the 'treatment' of certain others. YMMV

I'm just trying to be 'the voice of reason', which is why I was asked to be a moderator in the first place. I think?

Best wishes to all,
Mike.

tfarney
30-05-2008, 17:51
Regarding DACs, I don't think that's what Howard was saying. I think he meant that CDP transports are now superfluous to requirements given the accuracy and excellence of lossless streaming, which is what I've heard myself. A top-notch DAC is still needed in that scenario, certainly in my experience, as I've heard my Sony DAS-R1 completely outperform many modern and less expensive DACs such as those from Wolfson, etc. The difference is obvious - you certainly don't need bat ears to hear it ;)

Marco.

I'm not so sure, Marco. Howard can, of course, speak for himself, but I assumed, and specifically asked if he was using a good outboard DAC in that scenario, and I got this reply:



Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney View Post
Howard, I'm assuming that when you play music from your Mac that you are running it through an outboard DAC? And given your profession and experience I would further assume that it is at least as good as Filterlab's Duet
Tim
Err, no. Just the bog-standard, on-board, as supplied, Apple DAC! Sorry to disappoint you guys.

Spare a passing though for me thought as the retailer if you'd be so kind. Imagine what I'm going through, as the weeks go by, as the realisation of what’s happening starts to set in. Just as well that I haven't sold a CD player for a few weeks. Not sure my conscience could take it.

Business on the other gear is very good indeed though. Fortunately.

I was surprised by the answer. I personally believe that a decent 16-bit DAC of the kind found in average consumer equipment like the Mac does a fine job, and that most people would not notice a significant upgrade when going to "audiophile" dacs (unless they were hearing coloration in the output stage), but I didn't expect to hear that from a high-end dealer. No offence, meant, Howard.

Tim

Marco
30-05-2008, 17:52
Mike,

Well, personally, I think expressing an opinion is pointless unless those reading it understand it and can see where you're coming from :confused:

Cryptic assertions, which is how I view your comments, serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Hey ho...

Marco.

Marco
30-05-2008, 17:58
Tim,

If that's what Howard meant then so be it. He's entitled to his opinion. However if that's the case then his view is in direct contradiction to my own experiences in this area, and those of many others I know. I have heard, frankly, massive differences in DACs used in computer audio set-ups, the last of which was at a friend's house where the in-built Wolfson DAC on his media player was completely outperformed by my Sony DAS-R1, which resulted in him buying a Sony for himself :smoking:

I'm sure there are plenty of other high-end DACs out there that would have done the same thing. I don't want to be accused of over the top championing of the Sony ;)

Marco.

Mike
30-05-2008, 18:11
Mike,

Well, personally, I think expressing an opinion is pointless unless those reading it understand it and can see where you're coming from :confused:

Cryptic assertions, which is how I view your comments, serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Hey ho...

Marco.

Hi Marco,

Sorry bud, but I do not think my comments are cryptic in any way.

I think you know exactly what I mean! ;)

Mike.

P.S. That is my last comment in this tread.

Marco
30-05-2008, 18:14
Sorry bud, but I do not think my comments are cryptic in any way.

I think you know exactly what I mean! ;)


Well I can assure you I don't, Mike, otherwise I wouldn't be asking! One thing about me is I always say what I mean.

Perhaps Rob or Steve, or any of the other mods, have a view and can see where Mike is coming from? :scratch:

Marco.

Mike
30-05-2008, 18:14
Oh!... apart from this one:

I am in no way attempting to defend JC or Ash!

Mike
30-05-2008, 18:47
Stop panicking my friend!

All will be revealed in due course!.... time is at a premium ATM.

;)

Marco
30-05-2008, 19:22
I'm not panicking - I just want to know what you're on about! :lol:

Laters,

Marco.

tfarney
30-05-2008, 20:01
Tim,

If that's what Howard meant then so be it. He's entitled to his opinion. However if that's the case then his view is in direct contradiction to my own experiences in this area, and those of many others I know. I have heard, frankly, massive differences in DACs used in computer audio set-ups, the last of which was at a friend's house where the in-built Wolfson DAC on his media player was completely outperformed by my Sony DAS-R1, which resulted in him buying a Sony for himself :smoking:

I'm sure there are plenty of other high-end DACs out there that would have done the same thing. I don't want to be accused of over the top championing of the Sony ;)

Marco.

Champion away, but isn't that a vintage piece? If we absorbed your enthusiasm to our marrow, we'd still have the challenge of finding one.

Tim

Marco
30-05-2008, 20:46
It is indeed, Tim. However there are plenty of other quality DACs that would show up the difference, too, which are current models, Rob's Apogee being one of them. There really is a world of difference between 'bog standard, entry level' DACs and what's available if one selects equipment somewhat more judiciously. Transports are a different matter, though, and effects there are more subtle (but still very noticeable) in my experience. However, get computer lossless streaming of music right and transports of any quality, playing CDs, become an irrelevance.

Marco.

NRG
31-05-2008, 00:03
Neal, you're absolutely right. Btw, you're very quiet these days!

The thing is though whatever way you cut it, ADM9s (the subject of the banned members "message") are merely a canapé, and not even a full hors d'oeuvre, into the world of computer audio. It is far from the pinnacle of what can be achieved in that area, despite the ramblings and monotonous lecturing of the deluded duo.

They're fine for less discerning listeners or in systems where the accent is on convenience as opposed to ultimate sonic performance. But for genuine enthusiasts who seek to go the extra mile with computer audio and streaming there are other systems which offer superior performance, particularly in the DAC area, as the Burr Brown units used in the ADM9s are definitely not up to the standard of Rob's Apogee, my Sony DAS-R1, and numerous other more expensive high-end standalone DACs, or perhaps also even some good D.I.Y designed ones. Regardless of what Ashley and JC would want people to believe, ADM9s are not the 'last word' in computer audio, and certainly not in hi-fi in general.

It was their pitching of the ADM9s as something way above what they truly represented that people here and elsewhere found unpalatable, and also downright ludicrous. Their condescending remarks and incredibly arrogant, 'we know better than anyone else' mantra, didn't help either.

Tim, if you want to become acquainted with the views of the 'AVI boys' then simply search on 'Ashley James', 'jcbrum' (aka 'evilpsycho666') or 'ADM9s'. I warn you though you'll need a thick skin to enable you to deflect their biased bullshit and blatant marketing agendas! ;)

Marco.

I didn't mention ADM9's or whatever they are called, I found the marketing tirade from the chuckle brothers just as distasteful and unpalatable as everybody else...however Ashleys stance on Audiophile CD players sits 100% square with me, yes, there are some great players about yours included Marco but that's not where digital replay is going...

CD replay *is* outdated and I don't give a fig for whatever counter argument is thrown at that statement...computer playback be it in iPod form or PC/Mac based form is where the market is going and on top of the convenience of it all the sound quality also equals or matches audiophile CD players.

The downside, and I've said his to many people, is the initial setup and installation takes expertise and experience, it is not for the average guy in the street, yet, there are one box solutions that attempt to provide the convenience of PC replay with the familiarity of a standalone unit. I've always found up to now these types of units lacking in one way or another, be it features or cost or......whatever.....hence my adoption of PC/Squeezebox and the ditching of my Naim CD player.

Out of my many friends outside of my audio circle of friends there is just one who wants to still keep a 'traditional Hi-Fi' system and he only want to do this to play his old vinyl...all the others use iPods... They are the customers the ADM9s are aimed at.....not you or I.

Edit: I'll also add after reading the rest of the thread (and re-emphasise) the 'message' the 'brothers where spouting is the same , ADM9's aside, as Howard posted at the very start.

Marco
31-05-2008, 08:20
Hi Neal,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with everything you've written apart from this bit (highlighted):


CD replay *is* outdated and I don't give a fig for whatever counter argument is thrown at that statement...computer playback be it in iPod form or PC/Mac based form is where the market is going and on top of the convenience of it all the sound quality also equals or matches audiophile CD players.

Whist no doubt a top-notch computer audio set-up could (and probably would) outperform a top-notch CD player iPods are a different kettle of fish. If we're talking about streaming lossless files with a squeezebox and high quality DAC, I'm with you, that probably would be as good or if not better than any CD player, but not an iPod. I'd take my Sony to win on sound quality against an iPod any day!

This was one of the tests we had planned to carry out at AVI HQ, which Ashley eventually chickened out of doing after it became obvious that I wasn't willing to be brainwashed into his way of thinking and told how to listen!! :mental:


Out of my many friends outside of my audio circle of friends there is just one who wants to still keep a 'traditional Hi-Fi' system and he only want to do this to play his old vinyl...all the others use iPods... They are the customers the ADM9s are aimed at.....not you or I.


I completely agree. But one wonders why they've spent the last goodness knows how many months on various forums badgering people like us to conform to their way of thinking when it was a complete non-starter. It's not as if any of us here (or certainly very few) were ever likely to ditch our T/Ts, valve amps, big speakers, or whatever and buy ADM9s. It was the ultimate exercise in futility and a complete waste of their time and effort. All they achieved with their arrogant marketing is to put people off AVI for life! And if AVI are so successful, like Ashley claims, how can he afford to spend so much time on forums arguing with people who will realistically never be customers? It's all a bit weird...


I'll also add after reading the rest of the thread (and re-emphasise) the 'message' the 'brothers where spouting is the same, ADM9's aside, as Howard posted at the very start.


If you wish, but there's no need. I knew exactly what you meant from the very beginning but simply wanted to expand on it for the benefit of Tim who was clearly somewhat bemused by the whole issue.

I still don't know what Mike was on about, though... :scratch:

Do you?

Marco.

Filterlab
31-05-2008, 09:18
Perhaps Rob or Steve, or any of the other mods, have a view and can see where Mike is coming from?

I think I know where Mike is coming from, although correct me if I'm wrong Mike;

Ashley started a thread about computer based music being of a much higher standard than any other source, this led to the usual AVI debarkle that resulted in the ousting of Ash & JC.

Howard has 'seemingly' brought up the same subject and now we're discussing it sensibly and praising its merits.

--Hypocritical?--

Could be taken as so, but here's where it differs in my opinion:

Howard's business and experience resides definitely in the high end of hi-fi, and recently he's commented on whether purchasing a high-end CD player (£4k) was necessary anymore due to the quality available from a computer. From there the discussion has continued.

Ashley however markets a company that produces (on the whole) equipment much further down the price scale, equipment that could in no way rival high-end equipment. The AVI stuff simply isn't a high-end rival as it is an absolute product - a closed chain.

Computers as sources have a huge amount of variability and upgrade-ability, whereas the ADM things are as they are and in no way can be brought into high-end.

So whilst it may sound hypocritical, this thread is entirely different in that Howard is in no way trying to push a cheap product as something that beats every other form of high-end replay. He's not saying that computer audio is better than everything, he's simply asking if a computer is a viable alternative to a CD player in the form of a digital signal provider.

That's how I see it. Mike, is that what you were getting at? :)

Mike
31-05-2008, 09:33
Hi Rob,

Yes... Well put!

We had house guests last night and I clearly expressed it rather badly due not spending sufficient time on what I was posting. Sorry about that everyone. :(

The evening got rather surreal toward the end, with a two grand mountain bike being ridden into my fishpond and an entire bottle of Highland Malt getting consumed.

I have a large graze down one shin and a headache. I need more tea.

Filterlab
31-05-2008, 09:37
The evening got rather surreal toward the end, with a two grand mountain bike being ridden into my fishpond and an entire bottle of Highland Malt getting consumed.

I have a large graze down one shin and a headache. I need more tea.

You know, my life is so sheltered and sensible. Last night Esther and I had a lovely meal and then watched 'Have I Got News' and other comedies with a bottle of wine.

Marco
31-05-2008, 09:41
Well I honestly never thought about it like that, but you're probably right, Rob.

I did wonder why Mike wrote at the beginning of the thread that he would sit back and watch the sparks fly, or words to the effect. I didn't really get what he meant then but I do now :)

I think you've summed up the difference perfectly, and I would add that the other key issue is Howard pitched the subject in a completely non-arrogant way which wasn't offensive to people or likely to get their back's up. Perhaps if Ashley or JC had adopted this approach then they wouldn't have encountered the problems they did!

Like I've said all along, it's about treating people (and their opinions) with the due respect and courtesy they deserve; anything other than that is liable to result in confrontation and lots of ill-feeling which is exactly what happened.

Marco.

Filterlab
31-05-2008, 10:04
Well I honestly never thought about it like that, but you're probably right, Rob.

Well Mike said it, I just interpreted it without alcohol. :)


I think you've summed up the difference perfectly, and I would add that the other key issue is Howard pitched the subject in a completely non-arrogant way which wasn't offensive to people or likely to get their back's up. Perhaps if Ashley or JC had adopted this approach then they wouldn't have encountered the problems they did!

Like I've said all along, it's about treating people (and their opinions) with the due respect and courtesy they deserve; anything other than that is liable to result in confrontation and lots of ill-feeling which is exactly what happened.

Indeed, and as Mick said in another thread, the way a company or dealer presents its products can either make or break the business.

Mike
31-05-2008, 10:13
Well Mike said it, I just interpreted it without alcohol. :)



The alcohol came later Rob.

Oh god. I don't even want to think about alcohol.

:bog:

Filterlab
31-05-2008, 10:40
:barrel: :drinking: :help: :drunk:

Think about it!

tfarney
31-05-2008, 19:06
Hi. Tim, the new and perpetually bemused here. If the POV of someone who doesn't share the sordid history of this whole affair could be useful, I'm not sure I see much similarity between the discussion Howard started yesterday and the historical one being described here. In fact, on what may be the key point, they are off by the full 180 degrees. It seems that the banished Ashley & JC, where trying to sell something. Howard, on the other hand, intends to stop selling something.

Very different objectives there.

What they may have in common is that notion that the transport of the very near future is the computer, and the cd is a rapidly dying format. I can't imagine that is even controversial. That, plus "my active desktop speaker with built-in DAC is the equal of all your high-end gear" is a different matter, and a ridiculous one.

There is one small, lurking controversy hidden in the folds of Howard's post though; the idea that the difference between the sound of the average DAC chip in the average consumer audio (or Howard's Mac, in any case) and audiophile DACs is subtle, and probably lost on all but those who have trained themselves to listen for it. I was a bit surprised to see here, but I don't find it implausible in the least. In fact, I'd bet that even the trained ear would have trouble consistently identifying the differences between DACs in competent circuits engineered with transparency, not color, as their objective.

And now I will back away slowly.....

By the way, damn fine crowd you have here. Smart people, it seems, with their egos not all tangled up in their judgment and their britches. That's not all that common on audiophile boards.

Tim

tfarney
31-05-2008, 19:26
The alcohol came later Rob.

Oh god. I don't even want to think about alcohol.

:bog:

I just flashed on a great scene from "Charlie Wilson's War" --

Tom Hanks: "Do you drink?"

Philip Seymor Hoffman: "Oh God yes."

Tim

John
31-05-2008, 19:59
Wow what a great thread some of it way above my head.
remember a few years back having a debate with a famous record producer about computer audio, at the time he told me to sell my cd player as fast as i could. It took me a year to get the courage to try my computer through a decent DAC at the time I was expecting a hrash sound. I had a highly mod nu-vista and my laptop and dac were eaisly it equal perhaps even better. I quickly sold my Cd Player and got the DAC I still have all my old cds maybe at some point i sell them but no idea when.
I also have lived with the 80gb ipod and now use the sony mp3 player which although not as stylish outperforms the ipod in term of sound I listen through HD595 and this is a really good match.
I must admit when i see brand new cd players coming out I just wonder who is going to buy it when you can use your mac pc or laptop with really good results. It just makes little sense to me why CD players are still being sold and persume this will change very soon.

tfarney
31-05-2008, 20:38
I still have all my old cds maybe at some point i sell them but no idea when.


Don't sell them. I still have all of mine. The jewel boxes are long gone and they're all in big black binders lined up in a pretty little row against the wall. The booklets are harder to let go of, but eventually you'll be able to un-grasp. If you listen with your laptop within reach, much more extensive liner notes, and the original album art are just a Google away. It's not as good as the big art that came with LPs, but it's better than the eyestrain that comes with CDs.

Tim

Complin
05-06-2008, 15:27
Wow what a great thread some of it way above my head.
remember a few years back having a debate with a famous record producer about computer audio, at the time he told me to sell my cd player as fast as i could. It took me a year to get the courage to try my computer through a decent DAC at the time I was expecting a hrash sound. I had a highly mod nu-vista and my laptop and dac were eaisly it equal perhaps even better. I quickly sold my Cd Player and got the DAC I still have all my old cds maybe at some point i sell them but no idea when.
I also have lived with the 80gb ipod and now use the sony mp3 player which although not as stylish outperforms the ipod in term of sound I listen through HD595 and this is a really good match.
I must admit when i see brand new cd players coming out I just wonder who is going to buy it when you can use your mac pc or laptop with really good results. It just makes little sense to me why CD players are still being sold and persume this will change very soon.

Yes I have had similar debates with myself about computer audio and CD but i decided to hedge my bets!!
I have a large collection of CD's so dont want to ditch these but wanted a CD transport and DAC that could hack it in the computer world without spending megabucks.

There are really three formats to choose from USB, i2s and firewire. USB is really limited regarding quality and transfer speed. Firewire tends to be on professional audio equipment such as DCS where you are spending £10,000 on a DAC!! So i opted for i2s which seems a good compromise in terms of quality and cost. There are now a growing list of DAC's out there that offer i2s as an interface
Perpetual Technologies P-3A
Northstar Design 192
Northstar Design Extremo
Empirical Audio Benchmark DAC-1 with I2S mod
Spoiler USB TubeDAC
Etc........

I opted for the North Star.

My basic problem with computer audio is the often poor quality, MP3 is dire, compressed and lifeless. Apple format is better but not much, so you really need to go for losless FLAC, WAV etc which are quite big files. However; all these formats, including red book CD, are not really up to the job as the sample rates are too low, particularly when compared with master tape or record.
You might like to read this interview with Tim de Paravicini: King of Tubes
in Stereophile that touches on the issues http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/1107parav/

Perhaps the industry one day might grasp the nettle and give us a really great true hi-fidelity format that is capable of reproducing all that music can offer in terms of dynamics and timbre?

With the cheap computing power available now and availability or 32 bit DAC chips, what an opportunity they have!!

Complin
05-06-2008, 18:04
At home.




MP3! No way, files are AIFF (as per my explanation and signature) - completely lossless imported from a CD, no compression whatsoever. I'm very familiar with this format as it's the format I use when recording my own music. I also keep everything in this format when I master on to CD as well. I never ever download any music and I never use any lossy compression. Also I don't use USB to my DAC, I use TOSlink currently although when Apogee release the Leopard drivers I may give Firewire a whirl, but I've a sneaky suspicion that it won't be as good.

I know it sounds absurd that a £5k player (and a £4.4k player) should not sound as good, but this is a genuine result heard in my own system at my own home. My current source destroyed my MF combo which I had for a while and loved a lot, and not 'only just' either.



Mine isn't the Duet, it's the Mini-DAC. Unfortunately the exchange rates are not brilliant and the Mini-DAC retails at £1k (although I paid less for mine ;)), still a freakin' bargain though!

You have definitely hit the nail on the head Tim. RAM is always more stable than anything with moving parts (ok, the HD spins, but only to block dump data) and the DAC [u]IS[/us] the source rather than the transport. This is where I feel computers have the advantage over CD players. I'm not sure the audiophile community will make the switch too hastily though, CD players are a tried and tested hi-fi source and there are some very very good CD players on the market, and not all necessarily cost £4,000 and up.

Very useful Stereophile technical comparison of the main computer based formats really brings home the poor quality of some of the formats
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

Filterlab
05-06-2008, 20:27
Excellent article, for those who don't wish to read the whole thing I'll paste the closing paragraphs here:


What does all this mean?
Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.

It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder—but the AAC codec used by iTunes has better resolution than MP3 at the same bit rate (if a little noisier at the top of the audioband). If you want the maximum number of files on your iPod, therefore, you take less of a quality hit if you use AAC encoding than if you use MP3. But "CD quality"? Yeah, right!

tfarney
06-06-2008, 15:52
I think it is really dependent on the source material. Some of it shows the limitations of lossy files very clearly, some requires the isolation of passages and listening for specific problems to ID the lossy files at all. I'm not at all sure I can hear lossless vs. 320kbps in any source material, but as I've said before, I ripped everything to lossless anyway.

I have a few lossy files acquired through other channels though. With some of them I think I can hear it when I listen closely, but only one stands out on its own, Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue" with its big orchestration and my meager 128kbps file. It just sounds a bit mushy. Still big and powerful. Joni's genius isn't diminished. Quite listenable. But a bit mushy. One of these days I'll pick up the cd and I'm sure the difference will be clear, if you'll excuse the pun.

Tim