Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New listening impressions of Stax C32 prototype and Shipping SR-009
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New listening impressions of Stax C32 prototype and Shipping SR-009 - Page 37

post #541 of 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post


Agreed - well-engineered 44.1/16 sounds superb. I would go even further and say that in my experience there's absolutely no advantage to higher resolution. I took the best 192/24 and 96/24 recordings that I have, and downsampled them to 44.1/16. The downsampled music sounded the same as the original to me on my high-end studio monitors as well as headphones. Absolutely no difference whatsoever.

 

This is also why I think SACD technology has no real advantage other than multichannel.

 


The SACD Mastering technology may not have an advantage, but the DSD recording technology is probably the best ever designed. It captures in the Megahertz range of detail and has none of the problems tape does. Analogue is held by some recording engineers who have bothered to make the comparison to be equivalent to about 13 bit. Very smooth sounding, but less resolving by an order of magnitude. I am speaking only of the recording masters, but that is what limits everything that comes after it.

 

This only applies to material recorded with DSD. Other sources converted to SACD have no such advantage, being limited by the original recording. SACD has two big problems, neither of which have to do with DSD recording. Firstly, none of the playback units within reach of the non wealthy have what would pass as a decent analogue stage. Secondly, there is nothing we can do about this because SACD was designed primarily as an anti piracy system, not a hifi one. They forbid a digital out, so you are stuck with the onboard, usually inferior DAC. I hope this has changed, but I think it is built into the license.

 

To hear what DSD can do, listen to the Redbook hybrid layer of a well produced DSD recording. Tierney Sutton's later work on Telarc, including remote recordings, has some of this. I have heard that Concord, when they bought Telarc, shipped the DSD recording equipment back. I do not know if there are any DSD studios in the US any more. Recent Japanese discs with an Obi are often DSD recorded.

 

The heck with SACD players, we need DSD players.

 

Edit: DSD equipment is available. Search Sonoma DSD.


 


Edited by Clarkmc2 - 4/27/11 at 2:13am
post #542 of 1512

The measurements were taken by Tyll himself, using very expensive professional equipment (microphones, dummy head, measurement devices, etc.), in a calibrated, sound-proof, and insanely dampened enclosure.  We DO know who made the graphs, we know that the person who took the measurements, we know the conditions (controlled) under which they were taken, and we know that the man who performed these tests is exceptionally reliable. 

 

Also, where did maverickronin ever make any "assumptions" based on the measurements?  All he said was that the THD was stupidly bad - this is an objective statement of fact based on the source material.  Even if the graphs were completely bogus (which they are not), maverick made sure to source the basis for his statements.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnaldo View Post

I don't know how many ways there are to say the same thing. But let's try it again. You're basing your assumptions of headphones you haven't heard, on graphs taken by someone else, and compiled under unknown conditions. I sincerely don't want to sound overly dismissive, but why are we even having this exchange? You have no concrete or even imaginary basis to substantiate any kind of argument. Well, sorry but I have some great recordings waiting for me and my Edition 10, and I guess the happy owners of the Stax SR-009 have some music waiting for them as well...
 



 



 

post #543 of 1512

Another one who hasn't heard the Ed 10? How many others are there? To make it less repetitive, I'll just post my previous reply:

 

"I'd like to suggest taking the time to catch up with the thread Stop recommending gear you've never heard: rant warning which is applicable here, albeit in reverse..."

 

Please feel free to pass it on to other members of the posse...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post
...
 


 

post #544 of 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnaldo View Post

Another one who hasn't heard the Ed 10? How many others are there?


Add me to the list. I haven't heard the Edition 10, but it is a very obvious fact that they have very high distortion at 2kHz.

 

I don't quite know what you are trying to achieve by emotively arguing against this factual statement.

post #545 of 1512

OMG, you are realy annoying! 

 

Stop posting crap on this thread that's not related to the SR-009, nobody cares and stop repeating yourself.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnaldo View Post

Another one who hasn't heard the Ed 10? How many others are there? To make it less repetitive, I'll just post my previous reply:

 

"I'd like to suggest taking the time to catch up with the thread Stop recommending gear you've never heard: rant warning which is applicable here, albeit in reverse..."

 

Please feel free to pass it on to other members of the posse...
 



 



 

post #546 of 1512


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Arnoldo has a point. Eventually if you are really committed to headphone-ia (& maybe we deserve to be committed somewhere) you end up with one system for good recordings and another for the

rest. For example,  HD800s and even R10s are too revealing for many discs, and sometimes they can seem like they need SACDs (or at least not over-equalized redbook discs) to shine.

Otherwise, there is just too much digital glare with lots of redbook CDs.

 

Arnoldo does indeed have a point, but he appears to have missed my mine. I'm not suggesting that a great headphone can magically make a bad recording be the same as a good one. The differences should still still be there, in fact the differences should be even more clearly discernable. But a great headphone can lift an average recording to be more pleasurable to listen to. To achieve that, the headphone has to be very balanced in it's presentation, as does the system as a whole. 

 

I'm aiming for one headphone to play all my music. I've already found it with the O2, even though that may not be 100% perfect. I'm hoping the SR-009 will be equally well balanced, just at a higher level - to allow even more of my "average" CDs become a bit more above average. And for my great CDs to be even greater.

 

Regarding digital glare on CDs, I'd also be listening to SACDs had that format become mainstream, but I think many people would be surprised just how much redbook glare can be tamed by a great system - without losing any detail.  

post #547 of 1512

No audible difference between high res and redbook when properly done, never heard digital glare, headphones that are pickier with recording quality are generally simply brighter, and Arnoldo doesn't know what the thread he keeps posting is even saying.

post #548 of 1512
@ El_Doug

Thanks for the backup.

@Arnaldo

Here's how Tyll measures headphones. That's probably all I'm going to say on the subject so this doesn't turn into a flamewar in a thread about a different product.
post #549 of 1512
Tyll's measure not so as "standard" as headphone manufacturer's , he didn't like those Europeans (just kidding,never mind)
post #550 of 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnaldo View Post

I don't know how many ways there are to say the same thing. But let's try it again. You're basing your assumptions of headphones you haven't heard, on graphs taken by someone else, and compiled under unknown conditions. I sincerely don't want to sound overly dismissive, but why are we even having this exchange? You have no concrete or even imaginary basis to substantiate any kind of argument. Well, sorry but I have some great recordings waiting for me and my Edition 10, and I guess the happy owners of the Stax SR-009 have some music waiting for them as well...
 



 



Insofar as accuracy is defined in a manner which is minimally inter-subjective, and very likely quantitative (in most cases it is, anyhow), your response that people cannot assess its performance in this capacity, absent using them, is utterly lacking rational foundation. The rational purpose of advising people not to recommend headphones (or recommend against headphones) absent having used said headphones pertains to the manner in which many people make purchasing decisions in this hobby, which is to gather subjective impressions and attempt to estimate from that what their own subjective impressions will be like. Within that domain, including people who have not used the equipment in question imposes what might be termed statistical error as you may have what is a relatively small (and selectively biased) sample represented as though it were a relatively large sample.

 

That is a distinctly different analytical objective than evaluating the headphones on the basis of their measured distortion, and so the issue of having used the headphones in question is utterly irrelevant. In other words, people who are criticizing the Edition 10 on the basis of measured distortion will learn absolutely nothing valuable on the matter by using them. Thus, it is not a genuine contribution to this discussion (or dispositive of the matter in question) to continue bringing this issue up.

post #551 of 1512

Priceless!!!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post

... In other words, people who are criticizing the Edition 10 on the basis of measured distortion will learn absolutely nothing valuable on the matter by using them...


 

post #552 of 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnaldo View Post

Priceless!!!
 


 


It is a matter of logic that something which is not a quantitative measurement of distortion is not a quantitative measurement of distortion and thus does not inform an inquiry on the basis of that data. What you quoted, irrespective of whatever intepretation you decided to run with, simply reiterates that point.

post #553 of 1512

Quick, someone post something about the SR-009 and get this thread back on track!

post #554 of 1512

I'm no EE, though I do like to think I have a basic understanding of graphs...  when the y-axis is labeled "%THD+noise" and is scaled logarithmically from 0 to 100, that sure sounds quantitative to me.  I'm not trying to flamebait here, I am legitimately wondering how a numerical scale is not quantitative in terms of audio measurements.  I am always looking to understand more in this hobby. 

 

I find your "legalese" quite charming :) 
 

edit:  I'm also thinking, though, about your point with regard to this measurement only coming from a single sample.  I know that Tyll's measurements in general show a great deal of near-perfect reproduction every time he does multiple tests of the same headphones (which he does often).  Given the huge number of tests he has done to date without ever producing an example where the same headphone measured radically different, I think this provides reasonable assurance that the measurement procedures are not going to have any material sampling error.  This leaves the potential for sampling error strictly in the domain of the headphones themselves.  If you are suggesting that a pair of $2500+ headphones made by a proven company will have such huge amounts of variance that we cannot glean anything from Tyll's test, then surely no one has the right to ever post listening impressions of the ED10 - they must all sound significantly different, by that logic.  Doesn't seem very likely to me. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post




It is a matter of logic that something which is not a quantitative measurement of distortion is not a quantitative measurement of distortion and thus does not inform an inquiry on the basis of that data. What you quoted, irrespective of whatever intepretation you decided to run with, simply reiterates that point.



 


Edited by El_Doug - 4/26/11 at 5:41pm
post #555 of 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post

I'm no EE, though I do like to think I have a basic understanding of graphs...  when the y-axis is labeled "%THD+noise" and is scaled logarithmically from 0 to 100, that sure sounds quantitative to me.  I'm not trying to flamebait here, I am legitimately wondering how a numerical scale is not quantitative in terms of audio measurements.  I am always looking to understand more in this hobby. 

 

I find your "legalese" quite charming :) 
 

edit:  I'm also thinking, though, about your point with regard to this measurement only coming from a single sample.  I know that Tyll's measurements in general show a great deal of near-perfect reproduction every time he does multiple tests of the same headphones (which he does often).  Given the huge number of tests he has done to date without ever producing an example where the same headphone measured radically different, I think this provides reasonable assurance that the measurement procedures are not going to have any material sampling error.  This leaves the potential for sampling error strictly in the domain of the headphones themselves.  If you are suggesting that a pair of $2500+ headphones made by a proven company will have such huge amounts of variance that we cannot glean anything from Tyll's test, then surely no one has the right to ever post listening impressions of the ED10 - they must all sound significantly different, by that logic.  Doesn't seem very likely to me. 

 



 

 

Was this post directed at me? If so, it sounds like you misunderstood my explanation since I never suggested either (a) that Tyll's graphs are not quantitative (they are by definition quantitative) or (b) that there is a manifest problem with the data (per sampling error, for example). I can't really respond to your questions since they attribute views to me which I do not possess.

 

Let's return to the topic at hand, the SR-009.


Edited by Filburt - 4/26/11 at 6:09pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New listening impressions of Stax C32 prototype and Shipping SR-009