"Big - Old - Legacy - Separates"

Anyone with an IQ ought to understand that judgement of sound quality is not really possible when the wife is hoovering or you are at a Hi Fi Show. You don't hear important low level detail and you don't have time to adjust to slightly alien acoustics.

Anyone who can add up, ought to realise that there's an awful lot of music out there and the chances of a dem including something you like or relate to are about the same as those of winning the lottery.

And "musical involvement" strikes me as a meaningless term used to dismiss or praise on a whim. I think you should stick to box swapping and forget about sound quality; It's so much more rewarding.

Hi Ashley,

There are a number of points you raised that I feel I should address.

Quote:

---

The distortion on old studio kit is blindingly obvious, where the new stuff is amazingly clean and clear.

---

Would that be measured distortion or audible (judging by your ears) distortion? The reason I ask is that if it's simply measured distortion some of it may have been responsible for the equipment's inherent 'musicality'. Allow me to explain:

If we accept the fact that all equipment distorts the signal to some degree then effectively (as I alluded to jc in another thread) all we're doing when assembling hi-fi systems is choosing our own brand of distortion, therefore simply making equipment sound "amazingly clean and clear" may remove elements of its sound that initially made it enjoyable to listen to. Getting a system to sound musical is not just about everything being "amazingly clean and clear".

The fact is there is no 'perfect' sound. Your equipment doesn't produce it and neither does any other manufacturer's, so if your design goal with AVI is to produce this "amazingly clean and clear sound" that measures perfectly then you may be missing the mark somewhat. I'm not saying this is how the ADM9s sound, because I haven't heard them, but I've heard equipment designed around the principles I've described above and it more often than not sounds bland and 'soulless'. The sound, although technically 'correct', just doesn't connect you with music in the way of other designs which accept that some form of distortion is inevitable and that factors this into the equation during the designer's voicing process.

In my experience, the best hi-fi equipment is designed as far as possible by ear and by people who genuinely love music and have an understanding of its emotional connection with the listener, not those obsessed by test measurements and notions of 'accuracy'.

Quote:

---

The way recordings are produced varies enormously but you can still hear the improvements on most of them if you have equipment good enough to do it.

---

I agree 100%. But I would boldly suggest that "good enough" is unlikely to be achieved with an iPod Shuffle at the helm. A high quality Red Book CD player (such as I have described before), yes, a top-notch turntable, yes, but an ipod, in comparison to those, most definitely not. Like I've said before iPods are great little things when used in an appropriate context, but as a main source in a high quality hi-fi system, forget it! - At least if you are a discerning listener and are used to first-rate sound reproduction.

Quote:

---

If I read this and other Forums the overwhelming impression I get (and many who contact us comment similarly) is that people have systems that just aren't good enough to do the music justice and that they are blaming the music for what amounts to a poor choice of kit. They are not happy and some actually point out that their iPods sound better.

---

I think you're absolutely right and don't doubt it. Like I said before in another thread, it depends on what your benchmark is. If it's a bog standard fairly unremarkable modern CD player then it's possible an iPod could sound better, but not if you're comparing it to something like my Sony or other players of that ilk.

Remember that not all people on audio forums are those you refer to above. There are a significant number of dedicated enthusiasts who will always go the extra mile to get the best possible performance from their systems (count me in!), people to whom convenience, WAF, and having the latest and most up-to-date technology is an irrelevance - yes the complete antithesis of those you are trying to attract as customers, but that I'm extremely glad to have as members of our forum.

Quote:

---

If you understood the technology and what we've said, then you'd expect our speakers to be better and you'd hear that they were. But you don't and you have a bias which precludes rational judgement.

---

I know Steve very well, and the only "bias" he has is a bias against bullshit - when he feels that someone is trying to 'convince' him that a product is better when his ears are telling him different.

Quote:

---

I have to say that I don't like the way many records are produced for a variety of reasons, but even the worst are enjoyable and musical if it's your type of music. Therefore whatever you may think, it's our system that's musical and you and a few other detractors who are in trouble and "can't get involved in the music" on some recordings. You need better kit.

---

I agree that a good hi-fi system should sound musically enjoyable with all types of music and quality of recordings. However if someone "can't get involved in the music" with your AVI system then that's not necessarily the fault of the listener. It could simply be that the sound falls short of their current benchmark. I've heard Steve's system and it's pretty darn good, even by my high standards, so I'm not surprised that a system with an iPod Shuffle at the helm failed to have him dancing in the aisles!

Quote:

---

And whether you like it or not, the audio electronics in numerous PMPs are just as good as in the best CD players...

---

When you say "best", exactly which CD players are you referring to? I'll bet you £1000 right now that the audio electronics in my Sony CDP are vastly superior to anything inside an iPod!! Care to take the bet? Please do - it will help pay for the forthcoming modifications to my valve amplifier!

Quote:

---

...so if you play lossless or equivalent, they'll sound just as good. Also, because MP3 encoding is benign, they'll sound really good as well, just slightly dull and closed in.

---

I think streaming music via computer audio in lossless format, with a good DAC, has enormous potential and can sound stunning; I've heard it myself. But that's a WORLD away from the sound quality an iPod produces! And MP3 is just shit - period. In terms of performance to a discerning listener there are no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Quote:

---

One of our customers tried out tests on a load of shop assistants who wouldn't believe and iPod could be any good - basically they picked it out as better than a £1000 CD player several times on the trot in a blind test.

---

LOL. And what would a load of shop assistants know about hi-fi? :lol:

What CD player was used, in what system, and how was it all set up? Give me or anyone else on this forum the same test and I think you might get a different result. Come on, Ashley, you're seriously losing credibility!

Quote:

---

As they used to say: "There's none so blind as them that will not see"

---

LOL! You might wish to try some introspection ;)

Marco.

1. You can hear and measure the hiss and harshness in old mixing consoles and analogue tape recorders too. Quite apart from very high levels of distortion at low frequencies, analogue tape recorders are only as good as a 10 or 11 bit digital one.

2. The DAC's and audio circuitry in PMP's will be as good as the best CD players. We didn't use a Shuffle at Bristol, we were streaming a mixture of Lossless and MP3's at different compression rates via an Airport Express using Macbook Pros.

3. I don't think CD's have adhered to Red Book since the License expired. Your old CD player may have a better mech, but the DAC won't compare with the one in a Cambridge Audio 640C. DACs cost about £2.00 for small companies and pence for big ones, so there's no benefit to be had from a more expensive player. All are made from the same parts and just as different cooks get different results from the same ingredients, so do CD player manufacturers. Often because they haven't red the instructions properly!

4. All modern recordings are produced in 24 bit format on Computers and then dithered down to 16 bit to make CD's. Some audio only tracks on DVD's are 24 bit so might be better.

5. Talking about getting involved in the music is dangerous because it doesn't take account of the way our ears work. Someone may be used to utter rubbish and therefore judge something poor because it's different to what he's used to. The ears and the brain program themselves to "fill in the gap"s missing in your system, so when they hear something different it's difficult to stop this listening process and adapt to the new one, with the result that they think it's crap, when it may not be.

6. I've probably owned or manufactured some of the best CD players made. In the early days, after a Sharp and an middle price Sony I bought a CDP555ES, which was amongst the best of it's day. Later I bought a £2000 NEC that sounded better. It was seriously hi end and not sold in the UK and like a similarly expensive Yamaha I also bought that sounded better than the Sony, it had Burr Brown DACs - they were the best then and you could hear it. We used them in our first CD player in '94 and when their Chief Engineer came to the UK, he visited us with their own Lab Dem Dac. You can imagine his surprise when he was unable to hear any difference between his and ours!

Since that time we've always bought DAC dem boards from the various manufacturers and carefully compared them, having set the levels exactly the same and done the comparisons using an IR Handset to change between them. These days, they sound almost indistinguishable from each other, our CD player, or any DAC we design.

7. The comparison in the shop was done by plugging an iPod and a £1000 CD player into the same system, given the listen a handset and telling him the iPod was the CD player!

8. The problem with forums is that they concentrate on negatives and they probe for weaknesses in people, especially ones that don't and won't toe the line. Quite a few have done everything they can to discredit me, which is moronic. I'm human and riddled with flaws and readily concede that I make mistakes far too often and simply don't know as much as I ought to. However that isn't the point, what is, is that I'm likely to have owned more expensive kit, done more research and learnt more than a good few of you and that you might learn something if you weren't always on the offensive (a general you, not you Marco).

Instead of crabbing everything, why not ask constructive questions and think about the answers. Otherwise it's just a pointless point scoring match.

Or better still ignore a certain speaker and ask general questions.

I'm too hungry to continue!

Ashley,

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position in great detail. Unfortunately, though, I don't have the time or the energy to compose lengthy replies a dozen times a day. I know where you're coming from all too well, and I think you know exactly where I'm coming from, too! ;)

However, I must correct you on this:

Quote:

---

Your old CD player may have a better mech, but the DAC won't compare with the one in a Cambridge Audio 640C.

---

{Cough, splutter}. I think not!!!

I suggest that you read the thread on Audiocom International in the trade room (who modified both my Sony X-777ES AND DAS-R1 DAC; specifically the bit where Mark outlines why the Sony is so good in the first place, what modifications he's already carried out to my player, and what further modifications/upgrades are planned to take place shortly. Remember, I'm not just using the X-777ES player on its own. The Sony DAS-R1 is a seriously hi-end separate DAC.

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...p?t=301&page=2

Check out post #14 in particular, and #32 on page 4. You might also want to take a look at the internal of the X-777ES shown in Mark's link in post #14.

It bears no resemblance whatsoever to what's used in the Cambridge. The fact is both DACs inhabit totally different leagues in terms of performance. In the interests of factual accuracy it might also be a good idea if I showed your reply here to Mark and let him comment ;)

Quote:

---

I don't think CD's have adhered to Red Book since the License expired

---

I totally agree, and more's the pity!

Marco.

An Avi cd player is pretty good, and so are the best sony's, but they all suffer from being "yesterdays" technology and fragile to boot.

One is far better off with a Mac which can play digital files better than any CDp.

And you have all the benefits of a digital library on tap, instead of using those old fashioned shiny disc things to hold the digi-files. We aren't talking analogue grooves here you know !
:gig:

Marco,

An iPod Shuffle is pissed on from a great height by a £500 Rega Apollo and the stream of piss already reaches terminal velocity from this player on its way down never mind from your Audiocom modded and updated DAC above it, which as I understand is a significant upgrade for streaming computer audio files, lossless FLAC of course.

So, Ashley, if an iPod produces an "amazingly clean and clear sound" then either your active speakers don't have the resolution and dynamic range to show up compressed digital for what it really is or you are losing your hearing acuity with age. Either way, you simply cannot make silks purses out of sows' ears but I will have to salute you for your best efforts at turd polishing.

I'd like to get into computer audio as it happens but only with lossless files or better and through a really decent DAC like the Bel Canto, Marco's beastie or the veneral dCS Scarlatti if I could afford one.

Quote:

---

An Avi cd player is pretty good, and so are the best sony's, but they all suffer from being "yesterdays" technology and fragile to boot.

---

LOL, jc. That's total bollocks. If "yesterday's" technology is better then who cares? And there's bugger all "fragile" about my Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, the combined weight of which is 40kg!! :eyebrows:

I don't care whether something is old or new technology - it's how it sounds and presents music that matters!

My all-valve Croft preamp sounds better than almost any solid-state preamp I've heard, particularly the phono stage. Vinyl sounds better than CD, top-notch turntables sound better than top-notch CD players, Leak Troughlines sound better than many modern tuners, particularly crap DAB ones, speakers like my Spendors that are based on 1970s principles and technology sound better than most modern loudspeakers, I could go on! ;)

Quote:

---

One is far better off with a Mac which can play digital files better than any CDp.

---

Erm, yes, in your opinion maybe! :lol:

Marco.

Quote:

---

5. Talking about getting involved in the music is dangerous because it doesn't take account of the way our ears work. Someone may be used to utter rubbish and therefore judge something poor because it's different to what he's used to.

---

Which is precisely why your active speaker system will appeal to those who listen to music through their PC for they are the ones with the lowly point of reference of which you speak.

Quote:

---

The ears and the brain program themselves to "fill in the gap"s missing in your system, so when they hear something different it's difficult to stop this listening process and adapt to the new one, with the result that they think it's crap, when it may not be.

---

My bullshit alert siren is waking up the neighbourhood with this gem.

Filling in the gaps, or mental error correction as I sometimes call it, occurs when listening to compressed low res music. This process along with (high frequency) distortion and phase issues over time leads to listener fatigue. An iPod into a system with genuinely high resolution, bandwidth and dynamic range is pretty unbearable after only a few minutes for this very reason.

Quote:

---

Erm, yes, in your opinion maybe!

---

In his marketing bullshit agenda more like.

Ashley,

Don't get me wrong, I wish you every success with your ADM9s. I enjoy reading your posts here (and strongly disagreeing with them :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Toy

Marco,

An iPod Shuffle is pissed on from a great height by a £500 Rega Apollo and the stream of piss already reaches terminal velocity from this player on its way down never mind from your Audiocom modded and updated DAC above it, which as I understand is a significant upgrade for streaming computer audio files, lossless FLAC of course.

Som if an iPod produces an "amazingly clean and clear sound" then either your active speakers don't have the resolution and dynamic range to show up compressed digital for what it really is or you are losing your hearing acuity with age. Either way, you simply cannot make silks purses out of sows' ears but I will have to salute you for your best efforts at turd polishing.

I'd like to get into computer audio as it happens but only with lossless files or better and through a really decent DAC like the Bel Canto, Marco's beastie or the veneral dCS Scarlatti if I could afford one.

---

Steve

The problem as I see it is that you don't understand the technology and are prone to making assumptions that aren't based on reason.

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech/

Do this experiment and you'll immediately see how the ears are so easily fooled and why there is such a huge disparity of opinion amongst the people who've heard briefly, but not bought, ADM9s. Those who have bought them are as zealous about them as us. Customers really rate them and, as you know, most have sold very very expensive systems to buy them, some have even bought several pairs!

All the DAC chips you can buy are at least 24 bit and come with explicit instructions on how to use them. Manufacturers will even give you one they've made to learn from. There is no scope for an "artist" to improve on this. All DAC's comfortable exceed the CD's 16 bit spec and they all sound so similar (as they should do) no one would try to argue that one is better than another. However Linn are claiming the one they and we use is the best in the World and it is, because it's at least as good as all the best DAC's. This means that whether you buy an Edirol UA25 for £130 or some end device in a pretty box for several thousand, they should sound exactly the same if both designers know their job, my money would be on Edirol because they are leaders in the Pro sector and going to be a much larger and more knowledgeable company.

You really don't understand dynamic range so I'll explain. If you have an amplifier of much less than 100 WPC, then you are sabotaging the music you listen to because it will be clipping a lot of the time. This is because it doesn't have enough DYNAMIC RANGE. Some amplifiers with this problem have been described as "making music" and it's confused people. They aren't "making music" they are spoiling it if you are in the AVI camp.

ADM9s have a larger voice coil and more power handling than most 6.5" drive units and they are driven directly by an amplifier that produces peaks of 500 watts and an RMS of 250 Watts. They have much more dynamic range than most systems and better control with it. Therefore they will not only be cleaner and clearer at normal levels but continue to be so at higher levels than normal passive speakers are capable of.

What all this means is that we have a DAC we can prove is as good as the best, that we have a preamp using the latest miniature parts to give only slightly more distortion than the noise in copper wire and be immune to digital hash, driving an electronic crossover with big advantages over a passive one to amplifiers with enough dynamic range for modern recordings plus a bit more for luck. And I forgot to mention that passive crossover components have resistive losses that blur the sound and introduce quite a lot of distortion you don't get in ADM9s. And there's a special and very powerful sub for those that need serious bass from a sealed box with a monster drive unit in it.

The whole point of ADM9s is that they are a technically better solution for a fraction of the cost and that's what's upset frantic separatesists. They've spending years pruning and modding and tweaking and they see us as telling them they are wasting time and money and will never get as good a result.

And that's why I'm on this Forum - we've made exactly what people want, they are selling better than expected at an ever increasing rate. We knew there'd hostility from the types on here and thought it worth explaining the benefits in the hopes it might make them think positively for a change.