millerdog
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 1,035
- Likes
- 11
Hmmm....another potentially interesting and informative thread gets hijacked and turned into a debate that must have been discussed a hundred times here....
md
md
my work system
- Thread starter kelly
- Start date
kelly
Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Posts
- 5,435
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
My sentiments, exactly.
JaZZ
I promise I meant you no personal slight.
My home system also makes some compromises--I've decided to, for example, stick with CD/SACD format and not add a turntable. I consider this a grave compromise and one primarily for convenience. CD is gaining ground on vinyl and some day this may not be such a compromise but I for one feel that it currently is one. I also make a big compromise in what I can afford to buy. My home system would almost certainly incorporate the Wadia 270/27ix for CD, dCS or Accusphase for SACD (probably), Martin Logan Statements and tube amps that cost more than very nice new cars if I had no budget constraints.
With home, however, I have no compromise with regard to size. My CD player is large and heavy in stock form. When it comes back from ModWright, I'll have trouble just getting it upstairs. The headphone amp(s) are also rather large. I can use tube amps too, because they won't be moved around as much. I can also use open headphones including electrostatic headphones, and of course, speakers. It does make more sense for me to allocate more money to my home system than my work/desk system but it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. Maybe I'd be more willing to have a nicer work system if I did not have to concern myself with totability/size, not disturbing others, etc.
| Originally posted by taoster blah blah blah blah... who cares, just rip it lossless and be done with the comparisons! disk space is cheap as ass. |
My sentiments, exactly.
JaZZ
I promise I meant you no personal slight.
My home system also makes some compromises--I've decided to, for example, stick with CD/SACD format and not add a turntable. I consider this a grave compromise and one primarily for convenience. CD is gaining ground on vinyl and some day this may not be such a compromise but I for one feel that it currently is one. I also make a big compromise in what I can afford to buy. My home system would almost certainly incorporate the Wadia 270/27ix for CD, dCS or Accusphase for SACD (probably), Martin Logan Statements and tube amps that cost more than very nice new cars if I had no budget constraints.
With home, however, I have no compromise with regard to size. My CD player is large and heavy in stock form. When it comes back from ModWright, I'll have trouble just getting it upstairs. The headphone amp(s) are also rather large. I can use tube amps too, because they won't be moved around as much. I can also use open headphones including electrostatic headphones, and of course, speakers. It does make more sense for me to allocate more money to my home system than my work/desk system but it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. Maybe I'd be more willing to have a nicer work system if I did not have to concern myself with totability/size, not disturbing others, etc.
shivohum
Keeper of the Quotes
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 903
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
MacDEF, I did some searches but had bad luck finding this discussion. You must be talking about the threads on Headwize.
Here are some of your objections that I found.
1) The test did not define what it meant by "audiophile" -- the listeners could have had vastly different listening levels and skills.
Well, you're right, it was a bit vague about this. The selection wasn't, though, as you claim on Headwize, completely random. C't did first ascertain listener's "qualifications" before including them. They certainly ought to have included those qualifications in their article. However, I think there is plenty of evidence that these listeners were indeed well qualified.
Indeed, the article mentions specifically that included in the test were:
* an sound engineer whose profession it is to prepare classical music masters for production for Deutsche Grammophone
* a student electronics developer well-versed in audio circuitry
* an engineer who worked on the AAC algorithm
* an engineer who develops hearing aids, works on audio signal processing algorithms, and "is used to participating in complex sound tests, mostly dealing with finding artifacts and sound differences"
* an audio lover who owns a 40,000 DM audio system
* a blind listener with perfect pitch who had been involved in the creation of special microphones
Given the high calibre of these participants, there is no reason to believe that the rest are much less qualified.
Even forgetting these others, the poor performance of just these top listeners speaks volumes. The poor performance of even the TOP listener speaks volumes.
2) The test played the CDs and MP3s from a "a PC's cheap sound card."
This simply isn't true. According to the article, "we had the test samples encoded with MusicMatch 4.4 for Windows in joint-stereo, converted into AIFF format with a Power Mac G3 for the Apple QuickTime Player, and then burned onto a single Audio-CD in a random sequence along with the extracted CD Audio files." This means that they played the MP3s on the Marantz CD player.
3) The study method of testing 128k, 256k, and full CD samples simultaneously potentially obscured the differences between 256k and full CD samples.
This is a valid objection, but I think this just goes to show that, whatever else they may be, the differences are not "easily detectable" on a "good system." If one cannot consistently hear these differences on a Orpheus with excellent associated equipment even allowed plenty of time, attention, and effort merely because of the presence of one poorer sample, then the differences are not easily detected. Easily detected to me means that you don't have to strain to hear the difference -- it is heard merely by looking for it.
Additionally, the participants had free reign to switch between 256k and CD samples and compare them exclusively as they wished. Considering that many of the participants would be familiar with listening tests, I suspect this is a strategy some of them adopted: first isolate the 128k, and then duke it out between the two others. It's only logical if the 256k and CD samples were as subtly different as your theory suggests. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I wouldn't so underestimate the intelligence of the participants.
Are there any other problems with the test that you see?
--
None of the objections above explains why some 128k MP3 samples were consistently preferred to the full CD samples of the same music, or why the DG engineer thought that the 256k samples sounded "rounder" and "more pleasing" than the full CD samples.
If indeed a difference can be heard between 256k and full CD samples, perhaps it lies in a completely different direction than expected?
This is more evidence that some MP3s really DO sound better than full CDs on headphones. Does this make *them* the true high-fidelity choice?
--
Finally, recall again that all the discussion above has been about 256K samples. Again, 320k samples logically would have even less of an audible difference from the original CD, if indeed any difference were audible at all.
--
Quote:
Tell me about it--those guys just keep pounding away at that work system argument that'll never end. Don't they ever learn?
| Shiv, if you do a search here on Head-Fi, you'll find a good deal of discussion about that "study." |
MacDEF, I did some searches but had bad luck finding this discussion. You must be talking about the threads on Headwize.
Here are some of your objections that I found.
1) The test did not define what it meant by "audiophile" -- the listeners could have had vastly different listening levels and skills.
Well, you're right, it was a bit vague about this. The selection wasn't, though, as you claim on Headwize, completely random. C't did first ascertain listener's "qualifications" before including them. They certainly ought to have included those qualifications in their article. However, I think there is plenty of evidence that these listeners were indeed well qualified.
Indeed, the article mentions specifically that included in the test were:
* an sound engineer whose profession it is to prepare classical music masters for production for Deutsche Grammophone
* a student electronics developer well-versed in audio circuitry
* an engineer who worked on the AAC algorithm
* an engineer who develops hearing aids, works on audio signal processing algorithms, and "is used to participating in complex sound tests, mostly dealing with finding artifacts and sound differences"
* an audio lover who owns a 40,000 DM audio system
* a blind listener with perfect pitch who had been involved in the creation of special microphones
Given the high calibre of these participants, there is no reason to believe that the rest are much less qualified.
Even forgetting these others, the poor performance of just these top listeners speaks volumes. The poor performance of even the TOP listener speaks volumes.
2) The test played the CDs and MP3s from a "a PC's cheap sound card."
This simply isn't true. According to the article, "we had the test samples encoded with MusicMatch 4.4 for Windows in joint-stereo, converted into AIFF format with a Power Mac G3 for the Apple QuickTime Player, and then burned onto a single Audio-CD in a random sequence along with the extracted CD Audio files." This means that they played the MP3s on the Marantz CD player.
3) The study method of testing 128k, 256k, and full CD samples simultaneously potentially obscured the differences between 256k and full CD samples.
This is a valid objection, but I think this just goes to show that, whatever else they may be, the differences are not "easily detectable" on a "good system." If one cannot consistently hear these differences on a Orpheus with excellent associated equipment even allowed plenty of time, attention, and effort merely because of the presence of one poorer sample, then the differences are not easily detected. Easily detected to me means that you don't have to strain to hear the difference -- it is heard merely by looking for it.
Additionally, the participants had free reign to switch between 256k and CD samples and compare them exclusively as they wished. Considering that many of the participants would be familiar with listening tests, I suspect this is a strategy some of them adopted: first isolate the 128k, and then duke it out between the two others. It's only logical if the 256k and CD samples were as subtly different as your theory suggests. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I wouldn't so underestimate the intelligence of the participants.
Are there any other problems with the test that you see?
--
None of the objections above explains why some 128k MP3 samples were consistently preferred to the full CD samples of the same music, or why the DG engineer thought that the 256k samples sounded "rounder" and "more pleasing" than the full CD samples.
If indeed a difference can be heard between 256k and full CD samples, perhaps it lies in a completely different direction than expected?
This is more evidence that some MP3s really DO sound better than full CDs on headphones. Does this make *them* the true high-fidelity choice?
--
Finally, recall again that all the discussion above has been about 256K samples. Again, 320k samples logically would have even less of an audible difference from the original CD, if indeed any difference were audible at all.
--
Quote:
| Hmmm....another potentially interesting and informative thread gets hijacked and turned into a debate that must have been discussed a hundred times here.... |
Tell me about it--those guys just keep pounding away at that work system argument that'll never end. Don't they ever learn?
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
kelly...
...you call this «compromises»! Well, the CD chain would perhaps improve with a decent DAC. I'm not sure how the XA777 is rated with CDs. Is it modified? I don't know ModWright, but it sounds like mods... My «vintage» Audiolab transport/Theta Pro Basic II combo which feeds the modded Metaxas Solitaire works well for me – sourcewise there may not be a lot of further potential to exhaust the nearly fully exhausted CD format, I guess. Or do you think upsampling is the way to go? AFAIK my Theta DAC works in a similar way. But of course meanwhile there are better DACs around. SACD or DVD-A will still remain a dream until there's an adequate musical diversity available. But that's what I think would be really high fidelity.
Surprisingly with headphones I feel the sound much less restricted by the lossy CD format than with speakers. The former have by nature an artificial soundscape which doesn't seduce to comparisons with reality in the same degree as loudspeakers do with their more realistic free-field soundscape. This my theory. My preference is with headphones at the moment – due to my slight tinnitus, which bothers a bit with speakers sometimes, barely so with headphones. (It's funny that I don't touch my electrostatics anymore since I have the Corda and the EMP.) But soon I will apply myself to speakers again. There are some ideas waiting on realization.
As to your «conflict» between home and work system: if I was in your shoes, I'd allocate most of my money to my home system. Just to reserve the crown of sound to the place where you can concentrate on the music. And I imagine that it would be unamusing if there was christmas all the year round! But I would probably also have such a fine setup at work and consider to use lossless/uncompressed files...
Just to mention: usual (MP3) Jukeboxes (yes, for portable use!) have up to 20 GB disk space. Not enough for lossless music. Therefore it does make sense to use MP3 – and to agonize over bitrates.
JaZZ
...you call this «compromises»! Well, the CD chain would perhaps improve with a decent DAC. I'm not sure how the XA777 is rated with CDs. Is it modified? I don't know ModWright, but it sounds like mods... My «vintage» Audiolab transport/Theta Pro Basic II combo which feeds the modded Metaxas Solitaire works well for me – sourcewise there may not be a lot of further potential to exhaust the nearly fully exhausted CD format, I guess. Or do you think upsampling is the way to go? AFAIK my Theta DAC works in a similar way. But of course meanwhile there are better DACs around. SACD or DVD-A will still remain a dream until there's an adequate musical diversity available. But that's what I think would be really high fidelity.
Surprisingly with headphones I feel the sound much less restricted by the lossy CD format than with speakers. The former have by nature an artificial soundscape which doesn't seduce to comparisons with reality in the same degree as loudspeakers do with their more realistic free-field soundscape. This my theory. My preference is with headphones at the moment – due to my slight tinnitus, which bothers a bit with speakers sometimes, barely so with headphones. (It's funny that I don't touch my electrostatics anymore since I have the Corda and the EMP.) But soon I will apply myself to speakers again. There are some ideas waiting on realization.
As to your «conflict» between home and work system: if I was in your shoes, I'd allocate most of my money to my home system. Just to reserve the crown of sound to the place where you can concentrate on the music. And I imagine that it would be unamusing if there was christmas all the year round! But I would probably also have such a fine setup at work and consider to use lossless/uncompressed files...
Just to mention: usual (MP3) Jukeboxes (yes, for portable use!) have up to 20 GB disk space. Not enough for lossless music. Therefore it does make sense to use MP3 – and to agonize over bitrates.
scrypt
Head-Fi's Sybil
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Posts
- 2,382
- Likes
- 125
No need to defecate on the portable rig conversation with justifications of mp3s and so forth. Kelly's just doing what he does best: describing something technically, then extemporizing on further possibilities concretely. He's detailing his ideal portable rig down to the format, not pissing on yours.
Let's try not to take other people's ideas too personally. People on Head-fi are nice generally and I don't see anyone on this thread being intentionally smug or superior. I think of you all as considerate until proven condescending.
Kelly's opinion of mp3 compression applies to ATRAC compression as well and to that I bellow a vast imposing so what? I've no problem with listening to MDs in a portable situation because sometimes even a PCDP is too much to carry. I have no problem with Kelly being unwilling to compromise in that area. I never thought I'd buy an MD-R until I did.
No disrespect, but I don't give a raccoon's fetid philtrum which compressed/uncompressed format is better beyond the context of this thread. I'm here for the thread's original purpose, which is the discussion of portable/office rigs. I'd like to be able to make/read sweeping boolean statements about portable gear in context and have them understood as abstract speculation that might/might not prove valid -- all without flames or touchiness. I'm interested in playing with Platonic Legos, not blasting other people's phrenological development -- that's my ultimate Head-fi thread rig.
Speaking of which (portable rigs, not phrenology): let's consider the factors of cost and audio budget partitioning. I really feel I've maxed my allotted budget in the portable area relative to home and professional audio. I've already got decent portable equipment. It will have to suffice for now.
Yes, I'd rather have a modded Corda HA, an iPod and and possibly Kelly's Ultrasones (not literally, though, unless he sends me his house key) -- I'll have most of them eventually. Right now, I have to concentrate on two home rigs -- speakers/receiver for my tiny bedroom (either Axiom Micro speakers, the Aego P5 system or KEH KHT-2005s) and beautiful surround speakers/preamp/amp for my digital recording setup. The B&W 600 series are what I'm going to buy for professional speaker use. After that, I'll get a DVD burner and then possibly the new Music Fidelity A3.2 (sounds gorgeous) and either the Arcam or NAD dedicated analog/digital amp or something better suited to drive 600s.
The A/D converter I use at home is the Lucid Technologies 9624 (go to mercenaryaudio.com for a look). I combine the Lucid with a MOTU 2408 Mk II (soon to be traded at Sweetwater Sound for an Mk III). I can already do surround sound mixes in Digital Performer, but to hear them, I'll need *proper Surround speakers with fronts that are suitable for professional stereo recording*.
So, to return to the topic at hand:
The Office Rig.
Source:
D-ej1000, MZ-N1 or mt-770. If I use the 1000, I carry it and my META42 in an Airbag; if not, I use my MD-Rs by themselves. (When the price comes down, I'll probably get a DS-8 as well, since I've heard and liked one of Sharp's 1-bit digital amps.) In all cases, I use an unmodded ART D/IO (which I'll also use for my tiny home theater rig when listening to stereo sources).
Converter:
ART Dio.
Phones:
ER-4P with the s adaptor, Senn 580 or Sony V6. (For home use, I intend to pick up AT W100s and the Grado RS-1, both of which I love for listening to classical music. I still have to hear the Beyerdynamic series for composing, tracking and mixing.)
Let's try not to take other people's ideas too personally. People on Head-fi are nice generally and I don't see anyone on this thread being intentionally smug or superior. I think of you all as considerate until proven condescending.
Kelly's opinion of mp3 compression applies to ATRAC compression as well and to that I bellow a vast imposing so what? I've no problem with listening to MDs in a portable situation because sometimes even a PCDP is too much to carry. I have no problem with Kelly being unwilling to compromise in that area. I never thought I'd buy an MD-R until I did.
No disrespect, but I don't give a raccoon's fetid philtrum which compressed/uncompressed format is better beyond the context of this thread. I'm here for the thread's original purpose, which is the discussion of portable/office rigs. I'd like to be able to make/read sweeping boolean statements about portable gear in context and have them understood as abstract speculation that might/might not prove valid -- all without flames or touchiness. I'm interested in playing with Platonic Legos, not blasting other people's phrenological development -- that's my ultimate Head-fi thread rig.
Speaking of which (portable rigs, not phrenology): let's consider the factors of cost and audio budget partitioning. I really feel I've maxed my allotted budget in the portable area relative to home and professional audio. I've already got decent portable equipment. It will have to suffice for now.
Yes, I'd rather have a modded Corda HA, an iPod and and possibly Kelly's Ultrasones (not literally, though, unless he sends me his house key) -- I'll have most of them eventually. Right now, I have to concentrate on two home rigs -- speakers/receiver for my tiny bedroom (either Axiom Micro speakers, the Aego P5 system or KEH KHT-2005s) and beautiful surround speakers/preamp/amp for my digital recording setup. The B&W 600 series are what I'm going to buy for professional speaker use. After that, I'll get a DVD burner and then possibly the new Music Fidelity A3.2 (sounds gorgeous) and either the Arcam or NAD dedicated analog/digital amp or something better suited to drive 600s.
The A/D converter I use at home is the Lucid Technologies 9624 (go to mercenaryaudio.com for a look). I combine the Lucid with a MOTU 2408 Mk II (soon to be traded at Sweetwater Sound for an Mk III). I can already do surround sound mixes in Digital Performer, but to hear them, I'll need *proper Surround speakers with fronts that are suitable for professional stereo recording*.
So, to return to the topic at hand:
The Office Rig.
Source:
D-ej1000, MZ-N1 or mt-770. If I use the 1000, I carry it and my META42 in an Airbag; if not, I use my MD-Rs by themselves. (When the price comes down, I'll probably get a DS-8 as well, since I've heard and liked one of Sharp's 1-bit digital amps.) In all cases, I use an unmodded ART D/IO (which I'll also use for my tiny home theater rig when listening to stereo sources).
Converter:
ART Dio.
Phones:
ER-4P with the s adaptor, Senn 580 or Sony V6. (For home use, I intend to pick up AT W100s and the Grado RS-1, both of which I love for listening to classical music. I still have to hear the Beyerdynamic series for composing, tracking and mixing.)
kelly
Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Posts
- 5,435
- Likes
- 12
Scrypt
Can you tell me the rough dimensions of this D/A converter?
Should I assume that it spits out a 7V signal? (Meaning I'd need to attenuate or mod it.)
Here's the link to the actual product if anyone else is interested:
http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/lucda96ster9.html
Can you tell me the rough dimensions of this D/A converter?
Should I assume that it spits out a 7V signal? (Meaning I'd need to attenuate or mod it.)
Here's the link to the actual product if anyone else is interested:
http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/lucda96ster9.html
scrypt
Head-Fi's Sybil
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Posts
- 2,382
- Likes
- 125
Quote:
Sorry, my bad proofreading -- you caught me in mid-revision.
While I'm certain the Lucid D/A converter sounds beautiful and would buy it myself based on personal experience with Lucid, what I happen to own is the Lucid *A/D* converter. I use it to capture glistening digital recordings of analog sources, which I then send through my MOTU 24/96 interface and soundcard.
Forgive me for posting in a state of refined exhaustion. I'm heading for bed immediately after this post.
About the Lucid's dimensions: I can't unscrew it at the moment and I suck with an eidetic ruler. What I can tell you is that it's one rack space tall (with mounting tray), half a rack space wide and fairly shallow. The D/A converter is exactly the same build as my A/D -- I saw it at the AES show this year.
Here's how I came upon the Lucid.
My production partner and I were talking about building a studio together. For that reason, he and I went to AES with the specific idea of pricing mikes, mike pres and A/D converters. The Apogee Rosetta was two-thirds more expensive than the Lucid and yet we preferred the sound of the latter. (OT: I also went there expecting to buy a Millennium mike pre/compressor that has dedicated sections for (non-simulated) tube or solid state but ended up preferring the Great River Mike Pre, which is solid state but sounds absolutely glistening and smooth. It works extremely well with the NEUMANN TLM 103 and certain AKGs and is the closest thing you'll find to a cleaned-up version of the original Neve module.)
Quote:
Actually, here's the link to my semi-actual piece, though it probably isn't relative to most people on this board, who need D/A.
| Originally posted by kelly Can you tell me the rough dimensions of this D/A converter? |
Sorry, my bad proofreading -- you caught me in mid-revision.
While I'm certain the Lucid D/A converter sounds beautiful and would buy it myself based on personal experience with Lucid, what I happen to own is the Lucid *A/D* converter. I use it to capture glistening digital recordings of analog sources, which I then send through my MOTU 24/96 interface and soundcard.
Forgive me for posting in a state of refined exhaustion. I'm heading for bed immediately after this post.
About the Lucid's dimensions: I can't unscrew it at the moment and I suck with an eidetic ruler. What I can tell you is that it's one rack space tall (with mounting tray), half a rack space wide and fairly shallow. The D/A converter is exactly the same build as my A/D -- I saw it at the AES show this year.
Here's how I came upon the Lucid.
My production partner and I were talking about building a studio together. For that reason, he and I went to AES with the specific idea of pricing mikes, mike pres and A/D converters. The Apogee Rosetta was two-thirds more expensive than the Lucid and yet we preferred the sound of the latter. (OT: I also went there expecting to buy a Millennium mike pre/compressor that has dedicated sections for (non-simulated) tube or solid state but ended up preferring the Great River Mike Pre, which is solid state but sounds absolutely glistening and smooth. It works extremely well with the NEUMANN TLM 103 and certain AKGs and is the closest thing you'll find to a cleaned-up version of the original Neve module.)
Quote:
| Originally posted by kelly Here's the link to the actual product if anyone else is interested: http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/lucda96ster9.html |
Actually, here's the link to my semi-actual piece, though it probably isn't relative to most people on this board, who need D/A.
Dusty Chalk
Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 6,565
- Likes
- 15
Quote:
Not me. Quote:
I completely disagree with this assessment.
Otherwise nice article, kelly. One of these days, I'll have to try'n one-up you. Here's my work system (not at all totable):
Parasound CDP1K as transport;
cheap-ass Hosa digital cable -- I disagree with your assessment that cheap is bad, although I do agree with your assessment that bad quality will yield bad sound;
Audio Alchemy DDEv3.0 w/upgrade power supply -- upgrade power supplies are very important, methinks (and meagrees w/ you); also -- the AA DDEv3.0 cost me approx US$200, and I would put it up against the Art DI/O -- these things are way overrated, they're good, yes, but I think it's just a fad;
Cardas Neutral Ref/Outlaw interconnects -- can't really tell the difference yet;
Radii Audio HAP-02 -- still playing around with the tubes, but I've pretty much settled on the EL84's: Ei Elite; for the 12AX7, I've been rotating between several 5751's that Hirsch has given me, and they're all quite good;
Beyer DT770 -- best at isolation, short of sticking something in your ear, AFAIK.
If I wanted to make this totable -- which it was for a while, the Parasound is rack-mountable, the AA fits above it velcroed, a Creek OBH-11SE sounds quite good to me.
But if I was really thinking, I would scrap everything and start toting around my Kenwood RD-VH7 -- it sounds so good right now. My only complaint is the formats -- if it could play DAD (of which I have several that I would listen to more often), SACD, DVD-A, etc., I'd be a lot happier. Hopefully, soon.
I like the idea of a totable 100G USB-based (or whatever) hard drive of uncompressed tunes. I might just switch over, since I have a decent machine at work, but I'd still have to come up with the USB to the digital input of the DAC. Also, I might have to come up with a 24/96 DAC...
| Originally posted by JaZZ But my experience and conviction is – other than that of Tim D – that headphones are far more forgiving than speakers. |
Not me. Quote:
| Originally posted by kelly And let's face it, if you wear a K1000 at work, you're a dork.
|
I completely disagree with this assessment.
Otherwise nice article, kelly. One of these days, I'll have to try'n one-up you. Here's my work system (not at all totable):
Parasound CDP1K as transport;
cheap-ass Hosa digital cable -- I disagree with your assessment that cheap is bad, although I do agree with your assessment that bad quality will yield bad sound;
Audio Alchemy DDEv3.0 w/upgrade power supply -- upgrade power supplies are very important, methinks (and meagrees w/ you); also -- the AA DDEv3.0 cost me approx US$200, and I would put it up against the Art DI/O -- these things are way overrated, they're good, yes, but I think it's just a fad;
Cardas Neutral Ref/Outlaw interconnects -- can't really tell the difference yet;
Radii Audio HAP-02 -- still playing around with the tubes, but I've pretty much settled on the EL84's: Ei Elite; for the 12AX7, I've been rotating between several 5751's that Hirsch has given me, and they're all quite good;
Beyer DT770 -- best at isolation, short of sticking something in your ear, AFAIK.
If I wanted to make this totable -- which it was for a while, the Parasound is rack-mountable, the AA fits above it velcroed, a Creek OBH-11SE sounds quite good to me.
But if I was really thinking, I would scrap everything and start toting around my Kenwood RD-VH7 -- it sounds so good right now. My only complaint is the formats -- if it could play DAD (of which I have several that I would listen to more often), SACD, DVD-A, etc., I'd be a lot happier. Hopefully, soon.
I like the idea of a totable 100G USB-based (or whatever) hard drive of uncompressed tunes. I might just switch over, since I have a decent machine at work, but I'd still have to come up with the USB to the digital input of the DAC. Also, I might have to come up with a 24/96 DAC...
andrew3199
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Posts
- 953
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
I could not have put it better myself, I know this is an old thread but I just couldn't resist, there has been some serious testing by individuals that have golden type ears and listen to music for a living, I personally think the diffrences are all in the head ( see link below "an intresting artical regarding MP3's"
| Originally Posted by shivohum Well-ripped well-encoded MP3s at high bit rates can sound excellent. At 320 kbps or even 256 kbps many or most would be hard pressed to tell the difference between mp3s and ordinary CDs, if indeed an audible difference actually exists. If it exists, its significance is questionable. Indeed, Tyll thinks that, in some cases, MP3s may sound *better* than CDs for headphone use by virtue of the fact that they remove some spatial information that isn't designed for headphones. The sound may thus be cleaner. A lot of people listen to poorly-ripped, poorly-encoded MP3s on PCs with poor soundcards with poor MP3 decoding software and then fault the format as being hopelessly low-fi. It's not as simple as that. |
I could not have put it better myself, I know this is an old thread but I just couldn't resist, there has been some serious testing by individuals that have golden type ears and listen to music for a living, I personally think the diffrences are all in the head ( see link below "an intresting artical regarding MP3's"
Users who are viewing this thread
