Does source matter? MF A5 CDP vs bad laptop soundcard
Jun 15, 2008 at 7:30 PM Post #76 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by vladvlaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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. ....


biggrin.gif
yes I was trying to keep it simple, of course the prime lens, larger CCD chip, superior casing, psu ...etc etc.... will all have an impact anyway you get the point.
 
Jun 15, 2008 at 8:48 PM Post #77 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.
biggrin.gif



Well, I agree with your last point, if by "act" you mean something like "time to listen to the music and not the gear." But as a longtime QUAD ESL owner (63s and 988s) I'd say that they, along with a fair bit of other high end gear, are perfectly suitable for the home. In fact, the ESLs can be driven even by fairly modest gear (Quad's own) and provide superb results across a pretty wide range of musical styles and recordings.

I think that this is the "good enough" problem. For some, lossy on a DAP is good enough and the prospect of "better" isn't compelling enough to make them want, and want to pay for, better sound. Some people love Olive Garden and can't imagine paying more than 9.99 for an entree. Some will spend their lives dousing themselves in Axe. Some will drive beaters and not mind because it gets them from A to B. Some will frame that effing print by Renoir they bought at the college poster sale and never think about art again. Audiophilia is an elitist enterprise and elitist enterprises are not about value for money or "good enough."

Most who are here want better sound and are willing to pay for it. Whether or not a 69.00 DVD player can provide some version of audio playback doesn't concern them. They are willing to pay for the extra % and to feel that to do so is worthwhile. They feel that to feed that 69.00 DVD player that is built with all kinds of compromises to its DAC chipset, power supplies, transport and associated software and analogue stages into a very good HP setup is to missing whatever % of the musical information that 69.00 player failed to recover from the disc. And I agree with them.

Case in point: I recently sold a Rega Saturn because I just wasn't using it in my speaker rig and we're away for a year, etc. So I plugged in an Oppo 970 and you know what? It's lousy by comparison. It doesn't do dynamics. The words aren't as clear. I no longer can follow different instrumental lines or rhythms and music doesn't excite or interest me and I've basically stopped bothering to turn the system on anymore. The Oppo is worse in every way, not a little but a lot worse, and it's killed the music for me. The highly-regarded Apogee Duet? Same deal. It's a phenomenal unit but a Rega Saturn it isn't. Not even close. By every measure of musical reproduction that I value, the Oppo and (to a lesser degree) Duet are pale shadows of the Saturn and less musically engaging in every way. Believe me I hoped it wasn't going to be so.

I think 2000.00 is a lot to spend on a digital front end, and although I can imagine and have heard far pricier rigs, my personal calculus suggests that for me it wouldn't be worth it to go much further than that in my current rig. But for others with the time, money and equipment to go for still higher-end sources I think why not? If you can hear the differences and they're worth it to you, go for it. If you're content to spend less than 100.00 on a CDP and then play that through 5000.00 worth of amp and speakers I think you're going to end up with an unbalanced system -- but maybe not. Maybe the point of diminishing returns kicks in at 100.00 for a CDP with you.

Finally, the idea that all audiophile gear adds colour and all studio gear does not just isn't true (I run a film and media lab). It's difficult and expensive to design "colour" out of electronics and transducers; it takes good engineering and good materials all down the line (try driving your posh HPs through your basic Mackie etc. studio Mackie and see how transparent the sound is). There are great and neutral audiophile products and cheap and coloured studio ones, and vice versa. So yes, source matters. Heck yeah.

o
 
Jun 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM Post #78 of 88
Quote:

Finally, the idea that all audiophile gear adds colour and all studio gear does not just isn't true (I run a film and media lab). It's difficult and expensive to design "colour" out of electronics and transducers; it takes good engineering and good materials all down the line (try driving your posh HPs through your basic Mackie etc. studio Mackie and see how transparent the sound is). There are great and neutral audiophile products and cheap and coloured studio ones, and vice versa. So yes, source matters. Heck yeah.


I absolutely agree with this. The point I've been trying to make is that when studio gear is noticeably colored, it is failing its mission, and usually because it is cheap studio gear. Audiophile gear, on the other hand, is often deliberately colored at the higher price points. Big difference. Difference in philosophy. Difference in purpose. One is not right or the other wrong, but it sure doesn't hurt to be aware of it rather than to believe that the $4000 audiophile DAC is inherently better than the $500 pro DAC. In fact, the odds are pretty good that the $500 pro DAC is more accurate, if that means anything to you.

Tim
 
Jun 16, 2008 at 1:09 AM Post #79 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I absolutely agree with this. The point I've been trying to make is that when studio gear is noticeably colored, it is failing its mission, and usually because it is cheap studio gear. Audiophile gear, on the other hand, is often deliberately colored at the higher price points. Big difference. Difference in philosophy. Difference in purpose. One is not right or the other wrong, but it sure doesn't hurt to be aware of it rather than to believe that the $4000 audiophile DAC is inherently better than the $500 pro DAC. In fact, the odds are pretty good that the $500 pro DAC is more accurate, if that means anything to you.

Tim



Well, I'll buy the first point -- and certainly there seems to be greater awareness of studio gear in the audiophile world than previously (and perhaps the other way round also). Accurate? I don't know. One of the places I've worked has an EMM stack as its ADC/DAC and I'd bet that thing is accurate (they also use 325i HPs on one of their consoles
confused.gif
).

There's a lot of mediocre pro kit (and even medicore pro ears) but I agree with you that when great-sounding and great-value pro gear like the Benchmark or Apogee comes along we ought to take it seriously and not write it off as "studio" and therefore unworthy of audiophile attention. Particularly as the high-end starts to dry up, as many are predicting, more and higher-quality choices seems like a very positive thing.

best,

o
 
Jun 16, 2008 at 2:34 AM Post #80 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by orkney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, I'll buy the first point -- and certainly there seems to be greater awareness of studio gear in the audiophile world than previously (and perhaps the other way round also). Accurate? I don't know. One of the places I've worked has an EMM stack as its ADC/DAC and I'd bet that thing is accurate (they also use 325i HPs on one of their consoles
confused.gif
).

There's a lot of mediocre pro kit (and even medicore pro ears) but I agree with you that when great-sounding and great-value pro gear like the Benchmark or Apogee comes along we ought to take it seriously and not write it off as "studio" and therefore unworthy of audiophile attention. Particularly as the high-end starts to dry up, as many are predicting, more and higher-quality choices seems like a very positive thing.

best,

o



Oh there's not only mediocre pro gear, there's bad pro gear, or semi-pro, home recording gear to put a finer point on it. And when it is bad, it errs to the bright side in a misguided attempt to sound "detailed" or "neutral," only sounding edgy and glaring in the end. When audiophile gear errs, it errs to the dark side, but we don't call it error, we call it musical.
smily_headphones1.gif
That's ok. I have gear that errs in that direction; I like gear that errs in that direction. I just don't think it belongs in the source. No one else has to go along with that, honest. It is just my opinion.

Tim
 
Jun 16, 2008 at 3:01 AM Post #81 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Oh there's not only mediocre pro gear, there's bad pro gear, or semi-pro, home recording gear to put a finer point on it. And when it is bad, it errs to the bright side in a misguided attempt to sound "detailed" or "neutral," only sounding edgy and glaring in the end. When audiophile gear errs, it errs to the dark side, but we don't call it error, we call it musical.
smily_headphones1.gif
That's ok. I have gear that errs in that direction; I like gear that errs in that direction. I just don't think it belongs in the source. No one else has to go along with that, honest. It is just my opinion.

Tim



Fair enough -- nothing wrong with a truly neutral source IMO and there is certainly a school of high-end thought that aims for "sound signature" over perfect neutrality. What happened to your Duet, btw?

o
 
Jun 20, 2008 at 6:21 PM Post #82 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.



I have a cdplayer wich uses a dac wich you named in your list. So, yes, i have a nice source at the moment. I compared it to a 1300 euro's second hand burmester 963 and there was only 1% between them, that close, or that equal.......good old cdplayers are still holding their own!
 
Jun 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM Post #83 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I absolutely agree with this. The point I've been trying to make is that when studio gear is noticeably colored, it is failing its mission, and usually because it is cheap studio gear. Audiophile gear, on the other hand, is often deliberately colored at the higher price points. Big difference. Difference in philosophy. Difference in purpose. One is not right or the other wrong, but it sure doesn't hurt to be aware of it rather than to believe that the $4000 audiophile DAC is inherently better than the $500 pro DAC. In fact, the odds are pretty good that the $500 pro DAC is more accurate, if that means anything to you.

Tim



It does mean something: accurate doesn't sound audiophile...most like some kind of colouration.
wink.gif
 
Jun 20, 2008 at 6:30 PM Post #84 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It does mean something: accurate doesn't sound audiophile...most like some kind of colouration.
wink.gif



That certainly seems to be the case, but the problem I see is people going about getting the colouration they want in the most circuitous and ridiculous methods possible.
 
Jun 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM Post #85 of 88
I hate this thread and the fact that I found this after spending $XXXX on my audio stuff. (not that it changes anything now, I'm still going to keep upgrading, but now I've got another reason to feel bad about it)
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 4:12 AM Post #86 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by orkney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Fair enough -- nothing wrong with a truly neutral source IMO and there is certainly a school of high-end thought that aims for "sound signature" over perfect neutrality. What happened to your Duet, btw?

o



I thought about it too much. And what I thought was that as elegant a solution as the Duet is, if Apogee can build a studio-quality DAC in a transportable device with all of those field recording goodies, software and a good built-in headphone amp for $500, surely someone out there can build a simple, tranaparent, spectacular DAC, without all that stuff I don't need, for a couple of hundred.

While I'm trying to figure out who that is
smily_headphones1.gif
, I picked up a transport (Trends UD-10) to convert USB to coax or optical for use with my Panasonic all-digital receiver. It also happens to have a modest 16-bit Burr-Brown DAC in there as well, to feed the old Harman Kardon I use for headphone amp (I find I like the sound of it better than the headphone section of the Panny). It sounds fine. Good even. I'm sure it can get better and someday I'll find out, but top priority has become nearfield monitors. Sometimes I desperately miss a real sound stage and I know from experience that it is a lot easier, less expensive and more controllable to create one over my desktop than in a larger room. I hope very soon to get Eric Alexander at Tekton to build me a pair of his 4.1s and an 8" sub. The day I can make that call I'll be pretty psyched.

Tim
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM Post #87 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It does mean something: accurate doesn't sound audiophile...most like some kind of colouration.
wink.gif



I think there's a lot of truth in that. There are certainly very transparent audiophile components out there, but at some point when I was out of the hobby, it found a new objective; it stopped seeking accuracy and started seeking tone. I think it probably has a lot to do with how brutally revealing even modest digital can be, revealing of recording and mastering quality that is often easier to listen to through more forgiving equipment. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Listening to music is about pleasure, not analytics (I think...). But I think it's good to go into it with both ears open, and understanding that components that warm and smooth harsh digital masters add and subtract exactly the same things from brilliant ones. Again, if it sounds good it is good, but you can't have it both ways. You can't warm and smooth the upper mids and trebles and have greater resolution at the same time.

That's just wishful hearing.

I can pick up high frequency details on my Etys that are lost on my Senns, for example. But I'd rather listen to my Senns.

Tim
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 7:12 AM Post #88 of 88
I am just wondering what is the outcome if the following is compared :-

$3000 CD transport vs USB Lossless I2S optical out to UD-10.

I want to totally forget about cdp or cd transport and peace of mind of bit perfect transmisssion.

rgds
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top