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

[Mike]

Mike,

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

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]

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?

Marco.

[Mike]

Oh!... apart from this one:

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

[Mike]

Stop panicking my friend!

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

[Marco]

I'm not panicking - I just want to know what you're on about!

Laters,

Marco.

[tfarney]

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

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]

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]

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]

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!!

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...

Do you?

Marco.

[Filterlab]

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?