Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Do audio differences exist between capacitors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do audio differences exist between capacitors? - Page 3

post #31 of 60

Pink Floyd makes me fart too. But not as much as Yes.

post #32 of 60

Well, the higher-end HT receivers are in fact better. Larger power supplies, more clean power, and better specs in terms of actual audio performance. Higher quality in general; you get what you pay for when it comes to HT receivers. And yes, some of us care about these things, bigshot.

 

And it's not the audio performance that becomes antiquated. It's all the useless functionality that they try to integrate into the damn chassis. And you always notice that that's the stuff they try to sell you on, so that in a few years, you have to trash your old one and they can sell you on the next tech buzzwords.

 

My point is, get a separate 5-channel (or however many channels you want) amplifier, and get a HT processor/preamp to go with it. You can upgrade the processor in a few years if you really want support for the next magic format or whatever. That's the better way to do it IMO.

post #33 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove424 View Post

I once had a subwoofer that farted during Pink Floyd's "Breathe" intro. I don't mean it sounded bloated or unclean, I mean it literally kept farting. Horrifically bad port noise issue. Sent it back. 

 

Sounds like the ones some friends of mine got with their department store "rack" systems. They'd invite me over, crank it up until the voice coils were slamming against the back plates and say "Dunnit sound great!?"

 

se

post #34 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJNeg View Post

Well, the higher-end HT receivers are in fact better. Larger power supplies, more clean power, and better specs in terms of actual audio performance. Higher quality in general; you get what you pay for when it comes to HT receivers. And yes, some of us care about these things, bigshot.

 

And it's not the audio performance that becomes antiquated. It's all the useless functionality that they try to integrate into the damn chassis. And you always notice that that's the stuff they try to sell you on, so that in a few years, you have to trash your old one and they can sell you on the next tech buzzwords.

 

My point is, get a separate 5-channel (or however many channels you want) amplifier, and get a HT processor/preamp to go with it. You can upgrade the processor in a few years if you really want support for the next magic format or whatever. That's the better way to do it IMO.

 

Just give me two good channels, a power switch and a volume control and I'm happy as a clam.

 

se

post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Modern electronics performs to specifications far beyond the equipment of thirty years ago. It's much better to get current midrange solid state equipment and just replace it when it burns out. Time marches on.

Oh please. That is completely false. You cannot make a claim like that. Its like saying old end of 70 totl cans should all be replaced with mid range cans of today.

A refurbed totl end of 70s amp will outperform a 2012 mid range amp. That, and its full metal user interface instead of plastic with wiggly crap volume knobs.

Or you could say cd is always better than records because technology marches on.



I know you are smarter than that, troll. smily_headphones1.gif


2000s midrange can be better than 80s midrange gear, because in the 80s had really crappy mid and low range gear. It was the beginning of the end some say.

Certain 70s speakers are so good, to get equivalent performance today will cost you 5000+ per speaker. Just go to our friends at aufiokarma to find out which.
Edited by ev13wt - 1/10/13 at 4:39am
post #36 of 60

What is it with people on this site accusing others of being trolls... bigshot isn't trolling, he simply said something you don't agree with. He may be wrong, but he's not a troll.

post #37 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaark View Post

What is it with people on this site accusing others of being trolls... bigshot isn't trolling, he simply said something you don't agree with. He may be wrong, but he's not a troll.
+1, it's just a difference of opinion.

For what it's worth, IMHO both could be right, but it gets down to specific cases. It's not really fair to generalize about all totl amps of the 70s any more than to bunch all of the mid-line current product together. FWIW, there were just a few things not known in the 1970s that are well known now, like dynamic headroom, stability into reactive loads, and they were just discovering TIM. A current mid-line AVR that passes THX Ultra 2 cert has to hit all those points and more. There was good stuff in the 1970s, but there were issues too. Example, one highly respected 70s era amp would break into oscillation when driving a common but somewhat reactive load.
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


FWIW, there were just a few things not known in the 1970s that are well known now, like dynamic headroom, stability into reactive loads, and they were just discovering TIM.

 

Perhaps a better way of putting that is that the so-called "high end" audio industry was re-discovering things that had been known sometimes decades earlier.

 

se

post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Perhaps a better way of putting that is that the so-called "high end" audio industry was re-discovering things that had been known sometimes decades earlier.

se
Sorry, can't go there. For example, the old tube amps may have had more dynamic headroom but it wasn't by design, it was because a spongy high voltage power supply was cheaper than a stiffly regulated one. The fact that the spongy supply contributed to dynamic headroom was beside the fact. When stiff low voltage, high current power supplies showed up in solid state amps that clipped like hitting a brick wall, it took several years before the soft high(er) voltage supply was recognized as an advantage, even then the motivation was economic. (Apt 1 power amp). Just because in the evolution of tech things sometimes get worse before getting better doesn't mean knowledge is lost, it's learning to apply all of it under new design criteria.
post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post

I know you are smarter than that, troll. smily_headphones1.gif

You know what? I lived through the 1970s, and cut my teeth as a hifi nut on the equipment you love so much. My brother has a Macintosh system he bought back then, and he still has it. Does it sound cleaner than my midrange Yamaha receiver? Nope. Are the features better? Not even close. Does his system sound better than mine? No way. My system sounds light years better because I have an onboard parametric equalizer, DSP processing, 5:1 sound and direct HDMI inputs. His system takes up a whole closet and he has to leave the door open because it gets hot. Mine fits on the end of a table.

Now if you're thrift store shopping and you find a nice old Marantz, that's fine. It's fun to find ways to put other people's castoffs to use. But don't kid yourself. Old amps are not better than current ones. Speakers? Yes. Old 1970s cabinet speakers sound MUCH better than the tiny satellite systems and outer space shaped high end speakers. They're a lot cheaper too.

Back in the 70s, I dreamed of amps with perfect specs. I wished I could have multichannel sound like at the movie theater, I imagined a time when music didn't have surface noise and I could fit a whole room full of records in my pocket. When I could easily record, edit and copy without generation loss. And I would be able to find a specific song from among thousands and play it without digging through records and cuing it up.

I've got it all now, and I don't want to go back.
Edited by bigshot - 1/10/13 at 10:16am
post #41 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post

I know you are smarter than that, troll. smily_headphones1.gif
 

 

 Way, way out of line. Even for Head-Fi. Bigshot's comments, even if you disagree with them, did not warrant that kind of attack - it's these kinds of random, unjustified "you're a stupid troll" attacks that bring down forum discussions. He was expressing a commonly observed phenomenon that modern budget/mid-range gear can easily outperform old hi-fi gear. I've noticed the same thing comparing my budget setup to my dad's Hi-Fi setup that I lusted after as a kid. For a lot less money, my gear trounced it. You don't agree with these observations? Fine. Then learn how to express yourself, instead of falling back on "your a troll" because you can't find the words to encapsulate a thought. 

post #42 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Pink Floyd makes me fart too. But not as much as Yes.

 

I thought yes was a Pink Floyd cover band... ph34r.gif

post #43 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


Sorry, can't go there. For example, the old tube amps may have had more dynamic headroom but it wasn't by design, it was because a spongy high voltage power supply was cheaper than a stiffly regulated one. The fact that the spongy supply contributed to dynamic headroom was beside the fact. When stiff low voltage, high current power supplies showed up in solid state amps that clipped like hitting a brick wall, it took several years before the soft high(er) voltage supply was recognized as an advantage, even then the motivation was economic. (Apt 1 power amp). Just because in the evolution of tech things sometimes get worse before getting better doesn't mean knowledge is lost, it's learning to apply all of it under new design criteria.

 

"Dynamic headroom" as you're using it here is just a meaningless term to make an inadequate power supply seem like some sort of a virtue.

 

A tube amp that can output 50 watt peaks during transients is no different than a solid state amp that can output 50 watt peaks during transients except that the tube amp with the looser supply will start crapping out sooner at continuous levels.

 

se

post #44 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove424 View Post

 Way, way out of line. Even for Head-Fi. Bigshot's comments, even if you disagree with them, did not warrant that kind of attack

It's OK. I'm a big boy and I'd prefer to just ignore these sorts of things. It really desn't matter. Don't want to stir up trouble with the mods.
post #45 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


You know what? I lived through the 1970s, and cut my teeth as a hifi nut on the equipment you love so much. My brother has a Macintosh system he bought back then, and he still has it. Does it sound cleaner than my midrange Yamaha receiver? Nope. Are the features better? Not even close. Does his system sound better than mine? No way. My system sounds light years better because I have an onboard parametric equalizer, DSP processing, 5:1 sound and direct HDMI inputs. His system takes up a whole closet and he has to leave the door open because it gets hot. Mine fits on the end of a table.

Now if you're thrift store shopping and you find a nice old Marantz, that's fine. It's fun to find ways to put other people's castoffs to use. But don't kid yourself. Old amps are not better than current ones. Speakers? Yes. Old 1970s cabinet speakers sound MUCH better than the tiny satellite systems and outer space shaped high end speakers. They're a lot cheaper too.

Back in the 70s, I dreamed of amps with perfect specs. I wished I could have multichannel sound like at the movie theater, I imagined a time when music didn't have surface noise and I could fit a whole room full of records in my pocket. When I could easily record, edit and copy without generation loss. And I would be able to find a specific song from among thousands and play it without digging through records and cuing it up.

I've got it all now, and I don't want to go back.

 

 

Recap that McIntosh!  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Do audio differences exist between capacitors?