[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its always a crap shoot buying equipment. I won't buy equipment without a circuit diagram.

That's an approach. Or you could listen to it, if you can get to it in today's thin audio retail environment. But when the logic of your argument fails, or its path circles back upon and contradicts itself, questioning the validity of my experience as evidenced by my signature or simply replying with a smarmy non-sequitur really isn't helpful.

Have a nice day.

Tim

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vladvlaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, perhaps a bad thing to say on a headphones forum.. I got some M-Audio studio monitors (BX5a), of comparable cost to the HD650s, only they are active. I love speaker sound (I won't be mentioning the inconvenience of having a volume control and power chord for each speaker to deal with). I guess I'm a speaker rather than headphone person. .

I would tend to agree actually. Very few headphones create a realistic soundstage. Stax Sigma's were the best but they can't really be worn in public

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney The Sony Pro Walkman has a published frequency response of 40 - 15khz and I suspect that is without its Dolby B or C engaged. Engaging it would bring the S/N ratio (which I could not find) up to acceptable levels, but would probably roll the highs off at an even lower point (not to mention suck out micro dynamics like a Dyson (not much of a problem since a cassette isn't capable of much in the first place). I didn't find dynamic range, distortion or channel separation figures either (didn't spend much time looking) but I can be pretty sure that no cassette will equal an iPod playing lossless files in these measures. In other words, it does not sound superior to an iPod by any objective measure. Of course specification do not equal tone. If you prefer its tone, that is a separate issue altogether, and one that has everything to do with the analog output stage (and, probably, the fact that the rest of it is analog as well).

The point was to illustrate that even though your media may be capable of a particular specification in theory doesn't mean you'll get that in practice because there are too many other factors involved.

An analogy would be cameras. For instance which would you rather have a 200USD, Casio point and click, 8 megapixel or a 5 year old Nikon SLR, with only 4 megapixels. By your arguments it's obvious. The Casio is newer and therefore cheaper, it's technologically superior therefore it HAS to be better right?

Wrong.

The problem is, for anyone who knows anything about cameras, that although the Casio should take more detailed pictures, in fact the superior lens on the Nikon will allow it to make better use of the the pixels it has.


The same goes for the Sony Walkman WM-D6C which has properly designed input and output stages and some of the best heads ever made for cassette. It can squeeze every last ounce of resolution out of the format on metal tape recording to very high levels without distorting. This was a mainstay of journalists for 20 years and only discontinued a few years ago. Solid, reliable, runs on AA's, uses a format that you can still obtain anywhere in the world. ( Try looking for an SD Flash RAM card in somewhere like Egypt ) This is why they can still command several hundred pounds on ebay.

Professionals judge equipment by different criteria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney Who said anything about a degraded signal? My belief is that the obvious differences between audiophile and pro audio DACs of good or better quality is tone, specifically warmth added to give them more of an analog sound, and that you could easily add that warmth with good eq. And retain the option to remove it when listening to particularly good, warm recordings. That has nothing to do with degraded signals unless you think the added "warmth," in as far as it departs from transparency (ie: no tone of its own), is a degradation of the signal. Which, of course it is, in the strictest sense of the word.

In my experience it's not that clear cut. Your argument is too reductionist and based on simple metrics which don't really tell you enough about how things are going to sound on their own. You can just as easily make a turntable sound analytical and cold as a cd player. A good modern moving coil cartridge on a decent turntable will measure just as flat between 20hz-20khz as a CD player. There is much more to it than that and things have moved on a bit from the 1970s when all analogue was warm and fuzzy or from the cold hard sounds of the digital 80s.

 

[vladvlaz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif An analogy would be cameras. For instance which would you rather have a 200USD, Casio point and click, 8 megapixel or a 5 year old Nikon SLR, with only 4 megapixels. By your arguments it's obvious. The Casio is newer and therefore cheaper, it's technologically superior therefore it HAS to be better right? Wrong. The problem is, for anyone who knows anything about cameras, that although the Casio should take more detailed pictures, in fact the superior lens on the Nikon will allow it to make better use of the the pixels it has.

I'd say the reason an older dSLR would still be better is that less pixels is actually more. People familiar with the matter explain this by pointing out that the sensor on the dSLR would be much bigger than that on a point & shoot. Hence bigger pixels/photon sites (whatever they're called) mean less noise (as on average more photons hit the site which is bigger, so when the signal from the chip is amplified you get less error) so apart from the increase in resolution the bigger sensor would give out a picture which contains much less digital noise.

Not to mention the fact that the Nikon is based on film SLRs which Nikon has been making for decades therefore its operation mechanically cannot be compared to these P&S's.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif The most heard complaint about any studio DAC from audiophiles is that they're a bit harsh. This is a transparent, unaltered source throwing unevenly mastered digital at analog-friendly ears. You could mod the analog stage. You could buy an audiophile DAC with the analog stage already moded, a good interlink might help I suppose, but not if it is an interlink made for transparency and detail, certainly not silver. Or you could turn down the upper mids a bit. Tim

You're abit wrong there, silver is soft, much softer then silverplated copper.

Old design pure silver IC's were harsh in the higs and lows, nowadays, the really good design are as smooth as copper but with extended highs and lows.

To me, silver plated copper still sounds best.

The best caps, like the audio note silvers and some beeswax caps and some teflon's have a more organic sound. More lifelike.

What you want is the extension without the harshness most have on top. Good components will cure this problem! and let the music flow...

 

[greggf]

Tim sez:


"But when you put in a great master of a great recording...your compensation is still there."


I had Quad loudspeakers. There was one cd that they sounded great with - Satie piano solos. It sounded so good, it made my wife cry.

The other 99% of our music sounded average or painful.

This is the problem with studio or pro equipment, or even some high-high-end home stuff. It is not suitable for the home IMO. Unless you're a masochist.

I think you want the best that you can get without TOO much adulteration.

Also, there's a point to stop overthinking / intellectualizing / perseverating, and act.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

You're abit wrong there

It has happened before. I thought silver was the brightest, but I don't know much about esoteric cable.

Tim

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Also, there's a point to stop overthinking / intellectualizing / perseverating, and act.

You mean as in stop fencing with you guys over audio philosophy and actually buy something? I will, I will. My current project wrapped today. If I have another one lined up by the time the check comes, I'll buy something. Honest. It won't be a DAC or a headphone amp, though. It'll be speakers, and maybe a digital eq....because I really do believe my own philosophical BS, that the difference between sources and amps is tiny compared to the gains that can be made with good transducers tuned to the room.

Oh and by the way, I agree that pro, and some audiophile equipment just doesn't make for pleasant listening. Things can be too revealing. But I still don't think the source is the place to futz with things. YMMV.

Tim

 

[PhaedrusX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its always a crap shoot buying equipment. I won't buy equipment without a circuit diagram.

what are some of the basic things you look for -- or avoid -- when looking at the schematics (are you more concerned with the output stage or the conversion process)?

 

[greggf]

I'm struggling to figure out how important sources are in my own experience.

It strikes me as if it's make-or-break.

Yes, you'd think that the transducers would be all-important, but . . . really, the subtle changes wrought by front-ends seem to be the things that make a system liveable and even compelling on a day-to-day basis.

Great sources are subtle and yet the most important part of a system. Any fool can tell that speakers or headphones are important. It take an advanced fool to focus, properly, I think, on sources.

And you can rate them on $$ spent, up to a point. A $600 cd player is competent and, eh, I'd just as soon be watching birds. A $2000 cd player is great. I look forward to getting into the listening room to use a $3500 cd player.

I assume this stops at a certain level of $$ or quality. But you get the point.

Yes, the $600 should be good enough. But, really, it's sad to say, it pretty much sucks. You'd be better off driving around listening to your GM Bose giving off the stock reports or livestock futures.

What you call "overengineering" apparently isn't. It produces the stability and dynamics which, over time and in subtle ways, makes the high-end experience so much finer than a merely competent or adequate one. 1's and 0's aren't all there is, taken nakedly, and to keep thinking that they are is perverse.

"Coloration" is life, and not just in audio. Unless you want to live in a sterile cocoon sustained by an IV drip, you need the parts that surround the DAC. A Benchmark DAC is drained of life. I've heard one. It's an engineer's wet dream. It is not music or life. Only an idiot would aspire to music drained of life.

At some point, you have to give in and try systems like your friend's, in your own home, at your own leisure, over time, if you can afford it. I think you'd then stop your (defensive?) rambling about pro equipment and such, and get some real pleasure??

I say this, because I did pretty much what you did when I first got here, only to realize that . . . the boomanas and such are . . . much wiser, and better listeners than I was / am.

And, although this is more subjective, I'd stop thinking about speakers. Headphones do all that speakers do, at a MUCH lower cost, save for the visceral bass thing. If money is an issue, and it always is, speakers are dinosaurs. IMO, though. And the $$$ will REALLY get you juice in terms of headphone sound.

The juicy witchdoctors here are right. This is the realm of magic. Sorry you aren't a shaman. But music is not engineering. At least not at its best, in the gut. That's where the artists live. The placebo effect, the physical appearance of gear, its cost, "overengineering", cables, and tweaks all produce better sound, because as human beings we're complete, mysterious, multi-dimensional packages.

Stop fighting it, and the benefits in your life extend well beyond audio and music . . .

 

[Navyblue]

Can we look from another perspective?

For the sake of argument, assuming that one is getting a set up consisting of the followings:

1. source
2. amplification
3. headphone

I'd leave the interconnect and cable for another time.

Assuming that the budget is $5000? How would you allocate it? How about change that number to $1000? Or even $500?

 

[regal]

$ cost isn't a good guage, I've heard $400 sources that beat the heck out of $1500 ones.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif It has happened before. I thought silver was the brightest, but I don't know much about esoteric cable. Tim

No problem, i tried them all! You can't know everything. I don't know everything either. That's why good threads help you learn and understand so much more!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif $ cost isn't a good guage, I've heard $400 sources that beat the heck out of $1500 ones.

Wich 400 dollar source will beat a 1500 dollar one? Were talking rega saturn here, one of the best in the field in that pricerange..or some other really good higher end cdplayers.

I am curious wich player you're talking about. I could do with a 400 dollar player that kicks the buts of expensive one's, but i am reluctant to believe it's true. Not my experience thus far. But i have an open mind...just gimme the name and type of that killer player...

Remember that higher end sources fair much better on higher end systems as well. So a cheap cdplayer could sound great on a 400 dollar amp, but the higher end player could sound much betetr on a higher end amp, say 1000-1500 dollar amp. You'll hear the weaknesses of the cheaper cdplayer much easier on those systems.

As i said, i am curious!

 

[regal]

A DAC-60 plus a soldering iron and $40 worth of parts, or a used AA DDE V1.2/3.0, or a used Adacom GDA-700. There are a lot of bargais out there, best bet is a DAC with a R2R Dac chip (current out only). Look for an AD1862, PCM63K, PCM 1702K, or PCM1704K based DAC. A PDM100 filter is a plus. Most of these handly beat modern Sigma-Delta DAC's IMO.

My current project is a clone of a Pass labs D1, a $5000 DAC which can be built for under $1000. Many consider it the pinnacle of digital audio.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm struggling to figure out how important sources are in my own experience. It strikes me as if it's make-or-break. Yes, you'd think that the transducers would be all-important, but . . . really, the subtle changes wrought by front-ends seem to be the things that make a system liveable and even compelling on a day-to-day basis. Great sources are subtle and yet the most important part of a system. Any fool can tell that speakers or headphones are important. It take an advanced fool to focus, properly, I think, on sources. And you can rate them on $$ spent, up to a point. A $600 cd player is competent and, eh, I'd just as soon be watching birds. A $2000 cd player is great. I look forward to getting into the listening room to use a $3500 cd player. I assume this stops at a certain level of $$ or quality. But you get the point. Yes, the $600 should be good enough. But, really, it's sad to say, it pretty much sucks. You'd be better off driving around listening to your GM Bose giving off the stock reports or livestock futures. What you call "overengineering" apparently isn't. It produces the stability and dynamics which, over time and in subtle ways, makes the high-end experience so much finer than a merely competent or adequate one. 1's and 0's aren't all there is, taken nakedly, and to keep thinking that they are is perverse. "Coloration" is life, and not just in audio. Unless you want to live in a sterile cocoon sustained by an IV drip, you need the parts that surround the DAC. A Benchmark DAC is drained of life. I've heard one. It's an engineer's wet dream. It is not music or life. Only an idiot would aspire to music drained of life. At some point, you have to give in and try systems like your friend's, in your own home, at your own leisure, over time, if you can afford it. I think you'd then stop your (defensive?) rambling about pro equipment and such, and get some real pleasure?? I say this, because I did pretty much what you did when I first got here, only to realize that . . . the boomanas and such are . . . much wiser, and better listeners than I was / am. And, although this is more subjective, I'd stop thinking about speakers. Headphones do all that speakers do, at a MUCH lower cost, save for the visceral bass thing. If money is an issue, and it always is, speakers are dinosaurs. IMO, though. And the $$$ will REALLY get you juice in terms of headphone sound. The juicy witchdoctors here are right. This is the realm of magic. Sorry you aren't a shaman. But music is not engineering. At least not at its best, in the gut. That's where the artists live. The placebo effect, the physical appearance of gear, its cost, "overengineering", cables, and tweaks all produce better sound, because as human beings we're complete, mysterious, multi-dimensional packages. Stop fighting it, and the benefits in your life extend well beyond audio and music . . .

You worry too much, not that I don't appreciate the concern, but I'm listening to lossless files through a $140 Chinese transport, into a 30--year-old integrated amplifier, ending with 10-year-old Senn HD580s. It's quite colored, sounds nothing like the studio systems I'm accustomed to, and sounds pretty good to me. I work at home, listening to all that lovely modestness several hours a day. And there is no lack of pleasure. And no defensiveness either. I absolutely understand that my system is nowhere close to the pinnacle of audio reproduction.

Really, we only disagree on one minor and one major point:

Minor -- the cost of sources. I'm not trying to stabilize a spinning disc, so my cost will be much lower than yours.

Major - While I agree that "color is life" (a bit over-the-top, perhaps, but I get your point) I fundamentally disagree that the source is an appropriate place to add it. The source's job, in my view, is to feed the unaltered (within possible limits) recording to the system. I will add color to taste, or remove it, a bit further down the line, as I upgrade. And as a side benefit, it brings my cost of source down again. A lot. But that really is just a side benefit.

I think the $5,000 cdp was probably a good path to the "color of life" once. But I believe it has been out-classed and undercut by the forward march of technology. YMMV.

ON EDIT: In the spirit of full disclosure -- I really believe the color of life should be added in the recording and mastering, not in playback. Often it is not, unfortunately. In fact, sometimes it is executed there. But when it is there, when you have a really good master of a really good recording? It sounds better to me on those cold, lifeless studio systems than it does on any audiophile system I've ever heard, including my friend's McIntosh/Legend setup. The Shamans are the musicians and the recording engineers, not the guys who design cdps. YMMV.

Tim