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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. C

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howard Popeck (Stereonow)

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

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 :-)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NRG

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.

Marco,

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

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.