Quote:
Quote:
Edit. I just did a quick switchover between the NOS and the 7 which has been left on to bake. Santana "Supernatural" track "The Calling". The relatively dark sounding Muse NOS DAC has a tone I am very familiar with...like that on stage...I really enjoyed this and cannot ask for more.
Muse NOS dac? Can you please be more specific? I'm familiar with a company called Muse but they used pcm63 in their dac. I'd like to know more abut the dac which you speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91
I don't want to come off as trolling you, but you must be made aware of how contradictory this statement is. Just think about it for a second.
You are saying that is sounds "hi-fi" which means "High Fidelity" which means accurate to what is on the recording as that is the highest quality we can hope to achieve. So you openly state these chips do what we quest for in Hi-Fi: Highly accurate sound. But you in turn say it does not sound like music... if it is Hi-fi, by definition it would sound like music -the music on the recording to be exact, just not a romantic or coloured version of it... because if it was coloured, romantic and distorted, it would not be a hi-fi device.
Hi-Fi means high fidelity. If it colours the sound with a boosted/peaky/uneven/rolled off FR/ Distortion it might sound GOOD to you, but it is no longer hi-fi regardless of what the vendor tells you, or what kind of price tag it has on it. By definition this is not the case.
So again, you seem to be complementing audio GD products without even realizing it. I find this highly ironic and amusing.
Glad it's amusing to you but it seems you overlooked the possibility that you and I have a different definition of "hi-fi". I know what you're talking about as I once had the same definition of hi-fi as you until I had more experience with other products. This has been said on another forum, there are two categories of products out there. The category which emphasize on the overall wow factor such as soundstaging, detail, layering, all the audiophile things. I consider the Ref-7 to be in this category as well as companies such as Krell, DCS, Levinson, Theta, Electrocompaniet, Wadia. This category is often termed as hi-fi. Then there's the category of products that emphasize on how the music itself sounds (qualities such as texture, proper amplification of certain instruments, decay, timing) overall products in this category will sound like a good turn table (if you've ever heard one such as from Clear Audio, Audio Note, Pink Triangle, etc..) or even real life. This category is often termed organic, it just brings you closer to the event IMO. Products from companies such as Audiomeca, Audio Note, Zanden, Timbre, Lector, Metronome, MBL are offered which provide an organic sound. You can call it distortion but then again you would be calling a live event distortion as well IMO. In my experience, with hi-fi sounding products, I always found myself saying "wow I never heard that before". Where as with organic sounding products, I always found myself at the end of the cd before I could even think of how it sounded. Both of these categories are capable of letting a person hear what's on the disc, but they are different in how they present it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ
No one here has gotten bent out of shape at all. We are just a little tired of hearing the same negative impressions from someone who has only heard the unit once and for a brief period at a meet. Surely you can understand that, and it has nothing to do with your wild notion that anyone has a problem reading a VALID opinion if they don't like the DAC.
Audio-gd defender to the rescue! FWIW I listened to it more than just briefly unless you would call a few weeks of listening brief. I am an assistant in my professor's research and as such I spend a few weeks at his house when I can since he lives an hour away and when we are finished with research for the day, we listen to music. We did end up comparing to the MBL dac before he sold the Ref-7 and I could have posted my impressions on that but then you would probably find another excuse as to why my impression is not "valid". You people are putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a bad dac, just not my preference. I've already said I would probably be happy with a Ref-7 if I wasn't spoiled by the high end pricey stuff. You guys have to remember, the Audio-gd is built to a certain price point and it is high value when you compare brand new retail prices of other modern products. The dac I posted my impressions of was $5000 when it was introduced. Older technology or not, there is a reason why the cost was so high. This is why there is such high value in the vintage market, yesteryear's $3000 dac can be had now for less than $500.
You are entirely right, and we both said the same things. Some want true accuracy, some want romantic twists. The great thing about definitions is they serve to define words. Which is why both schools of though are valid and useful, but only one is actually hi-fi with regards to what the term actually means: High Fidelity. End of story.
"Organic" sounding in the sense you describe it is again a contradictory statement, at least using this sound. Organic sounds, ones created in real life I assume you are referring to, do not have boosted mid bass, and rolled off extremes... they simply sound like what they are. Sure some instruments are simply too loud to listen to up close, and listening further back will alter the sound. Such are the woes of being human and using less than perfect sensory equipment. So if you think vinyl sounds organic, sure it does, to a degree, but it is also technically horrible and for very valid reasons, and does not produce entirely accurate sounds. For lots of instruments this is a lesser issue. For some it is a major issue. So if you think "organic sound" is defined by a romantic and coloured sound I think you need to check the good old lexicon for a definition once more.
You really do seem to believe in magic, and that is fine because I am sure it gives you great joy... but you must understand a sound is produced in real life and then recorded. The microphone and room offer certain colourations, then the mastering, mixing etc etc. So does the final medium, say CD or vinyl. YOU CANNOT IMPROVE PERFECTION which would be what is on the disk/vinyl... you cannot do better because it simply does not exist. To do better would be to own a private orchestra that could play without tire in an audiophile venue. This is indeed impossible. Considering a generic CD player, a decent amp, and a neutral pair of recent headphones will offer like 80-90% of even the highest end and most disgustingly wasteful hi-fi systems, a lot of "night and day" differences and "blew me out of the water" and "I never heard that before" are nothing other than placebo effect. Obviously if you pay more attention to the music, because you think it will sound better, you might just be surprised as to how much is really there. I am not saying everything is placebo, but a lot of you are describing most certainly is.
This is exactly why talking about "texture" and especially "timing" is total balderdash. If the gear is neutral and so are your headphones/speakers that is all there is to it. It is not "missing" anything. I might not sound how you imagined, or how you hoped... but that is it. The end of the line kiddo. You cannot be more faithful than neutral. Nothing is blown out of proportion, and everything is in line.
Timing is a dumb one too... like the music sounds off time, but only some parts? Looking too much into something will only cause you issues...namely making things up. And this is by no means a personal or isolated accusation. It is cognitive dysfunctioning like this, due to a very strong and respectable passion, that is responsible for the ridicule audiophiles face by most, and it is entirely warranted.
Also, it would seem the only consistent metric you can apply to high end gear, despite your apparent experience level, is price tag. Sure, most people will make this mistake... but when no one wants to hold audio to any kind of metric, logic would dictate money cannot be one either. Which is exactly why these overpriced items you discuss most likely sound very similar, either better or worse, to the audio GD gear. Price has no bearing on sound quality, and the fact you are paying out the rear end for mostly the name and the chassis is a strong point for this argument.
Obviously not all gear sounds the same, and I am not arguing it does. The magnitude of these differences, and the rhetoric used to back it up is highly questionable though.
Enjoy your hobby, and have fun. But don't go too far down the rabbit hole because you can never find the end. 5% here, 10% there... with all these ridiculous exaggerations audiophiles make, if one were to tabulate them some would surely seem 200%, 300% improvements over a longer course of time... which is of course totally false.
With regards to the ref- 7 your opinion is valid, but personally I find the arguments as to why are total bollocks. I would much rather just accept and "I don't like it" or "it is not the best" on its own, then have you try and justify it by saying things like "it lacks life" Give me a break.
, not everybody's appreciation of sound reproduction is in "neutral" gear, or for all occasions.
(And it isn't the first time and probably wont be the last!)