[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi bit more of explanations welcomz , pleez

If you take say 100 random CD's out there, the majority will sound "digital" because that's how the recording, mastering was done, and b/c that's what the CD's themselves sound like. It's not truly b/c 16/44.1 format is that bad b/c we all know of a few dozen CD's that were recorded/mastered well that do NOT sound "digital" yet very detailed.

The kind of "analogue" or "liquid" CDP you're asking for tend to make many of these "digital" sounding CD's a lot more analogue and liquid than they ever recorded/mastered, "creating" liquidity where there aren't any in those CD pits. This has the benefit of making most of these 100 random CD's sound more listenable and enjoyable. Nothing wrong with that if you just want to enjoy as many CD's as possible and if you're extra sensitive to digititis and "digital" sound.

The problem for me are those CD's that actually are well-produced and do not need any extra liquidity or "analogueness." These simply sound much more like the real thing when played on front end that does not editorialize as much or add as much flavor of its own.

I tend to have a higher tolerance for so-called "digital" sounding CD's and prefer to listen to the average-quality CD's straight-up, warts and all. This can be annoying and irritating for many CD's, but I prefer this type of annoyance over irritation I feel when I hear cloying shroud of liquidity or harmonic band-aid. Even the two great modded tube CDP's I mentioned have a degree of this quality, though much less than usual for such players.

As far as record players, I've heard some fantastic setups, but to me, record players sound great Despite their shortcomings and unique subtractive distortions, not because they pass all the information that was in the recording venue or on the master tape.

 

[boodi]

very informative posts ..
thanks ..

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The difference between analogue and digital is a matter of how the *noise* sounds, not the signal....

I've never cared for the «noise» in digital, but with vinyl it was a problem. However, I'm sure boodi isn't talking of noise when he wants an analoguish sound from a digital player, like the majority who think digital playback has its sonic drawbacks.


Quote:

It's like tube amps... they don't actually sound any better, they just distort euphonically...

I'm sure tube sound isn't just a matter of tubes coloring the sound, because solid-state amps don't color the sound any less. I know this from the tests I've run. But distortion is indeed a further criterion which an equalizer can't compensate for.


Quote:

With good equipment, a serious problem with the sound is MUCH more liable to be an imbalance than it is to be anything else... If you understand the fundamentals, you can track down problems and correct them simply. A midrange stereo that's carefully balanced can sound better than the most elaborate rig with no balancing at all.

That's a too simplicistic approach. Although the latter point can't be denied.


Quote:

Throwing equipment at the problem doesn't really address it.

Not your above scenario, but the real world doesn't look that black and white. There's more than frequency response.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I've never cared for the «noise» in digital, but with vinyl it was a problem. However, I'm sure boodi isn't talking of noise when he wants an analoguish sound from a digital player, like the majority who think digital playback has its sonic drawbacks.

Bigshot hit the problem .. I prefer tt vinyl artifacts (/mechanical ) then digities - even if they're micro -, and since I've passed some sources (cdpl) now it's probable I'm very sensitive to digital harshness .. soo..

it seems the most delicate a source is ( that is , the most refined a Dac act and rebuild up analogue signal ) the better my ears react on the long , and my choice now - that is , now I know I'd better choose a delicate digital source among a bunch , even if the less involving maybe , or in a short / long period I'll come changing again . [size=xx-small]Grado hp-2 gave me a lot of new info in this lately .
[/size]
ex. the 1212m did it nicely for me in this regard - I might get it another time , even if some aforementioned solutions , i.e. dacs , appeal me much and maybe bit more ( I'm yet searching info and sales about the McCormack Dac )

vinyl doesn't seem to bother me so much ( I'd have to do more tests about it ..but I quite rely on this , vinyls and turntables do it better for me and give me more joy without generating thoughts and discussions ) .

Quote:

I'm sure tube sound isn't just a matter of tubes coloring the sound, because solid-state amps don't color the sound any less. I know this from the tests I've run. But distortion is indeed a further criterion which an equalizer can't compensate for.

my exp..

I've found tube amps colouring the sound generally speaking more ( and much more noticeably on first impact ) then ss. ; they always gives some bloom and overly slow character to the sound , that shouldn't be there , that might very well suit some taste and serve some music genres / headphones ( hd650 for ex. ) ;

didn't hear the hp-4 and other high end tubes though -I just came bit disliking tubes lately and favoring ss for neutrality- ; I know stepping up on some higher end amps , that's kind of probable the tubey coloration would be much more an affair then a shortcoming also for my ears-

true though that generally speaking tubes coloration helps a lot taming and forgiving some digital harshness

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L ..

thanks for the follow up again informative and nailing some imp. aspects of audio choices / problems one likely encounters when choosing a " what's next " source..

.. in the end , all considerations possible done , if you were me you'd go for a record player..

 

[JaZZ]

boodi...


Quote:

Bigshot hit the problem .. I prefer tt vinyl artifacts (/mechanical ) then digities - even if they're micro -, and since I've passed some sources (cdpl) now it's probable I'm very sensitive to digital harshness .. soo..

Harshness (or glassiness, like I would say) -- that's what I meant with the «drawbacks» of digital. But are you really speaking of digital «noise»? What noise?


Quote:

it seems the most delicate a source is ( that is , the most refined a Dac act and rebuild up analogue signal ) the better my ears react on the long , and my choice now - that is , I know I'd better stay on a delicate , even if less involving maybe , digital source , or in a short / long period I'll come changing again . ex. the 1212m did it nicely for me in this regard ( I might get it another time , even if some aforementioned solutions , i.e. dacs , appeal me much too ( I'm yet searching info and sales about the McCormack Dac )

I have a 1212M (with Black Gates), and it really sounds nice and ear-friendly. But of course the McCormack is still another caliber -- in terms of resolution and dynamics. Here's an enthusiastic review: http://www.iar-80.com/page102.html
Where I bougth mine from: http://www.audioart-hifi.ch/tacon/de...1=HighEndL2=L3
The manufacturer: http://www.mccormackaudio.com/udp1.html


Quote:

vinyl doesn't seem to bother me so much ( I'd have to do more tests about it ..but I quite rely on this , vinyls and turntables do it better for me and give me more joy without generating thoughts and discussions ).

I can understand this (although I consider the vinyl effect fake, at least partly, as it also makes digital recordings sound «analogue»), I just thought you want to avoid the analogue route for practical reasons, and that's why you haven't asked for turntable, but digital player recommendations.


Quote:

I've found tube amps colouring the sound generally speaking more ( and much more noticeably on first impact ) then ss. ; they always gives some bloom and overly slow character to the sound , that shouldn't be there , that might very well suit some taste and serve some music genres / headphones ( hd650 for ex. ) ; didn't hear the hp-4 and other high end tubes though -I just came bit disliking tubes lately and favoring ss for neutrality- ; I know stepping up on some higher end amps , that's kind of probable the tubey coloration would be much more an affair then a shortcoming also for my ears-

I'ts all about synergy. It's impossible to rate neutrality of a component in the context of a single reproduction chain. My experience is (and my tests have shown) that solid-state designs alter the sound as much as tubes do, just in different ways.


Quote:

true though that generally speaking tubes coloration helps a lot taming and forgiving some digital harshness

Tubes color the sound in a more organic way than SS, so are indeed prone to minimize digital harshness, yes.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I just thought you want to avoid the analogue route for practical reasons, and that's why you haven't asked for turntable, but digital player recommendations.

in fact ..
..I previously pointed , it's in my plans to think getting a tt and related , but not now .. it would be messy thing at the moment , mainly would drain a lot of resources .. i see it's way better get a digital upgrade now and wait for a possible nice analogue choice in the ( may be not so far ?) future

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Harshness (or glassiness, like I would say) -- that's what I meant with the «drawbacks» of digital. But are you really speaking of digital «noise»? What noise?

Harshness and glassiness are imbalances of the upper mids. This is very common among headphones and speakers. Just about all systems today have boosted upper mids. As for digital noise, it's more common than you think. There's digital noise caused by clipping in many CDs. See...

Over The Limit

As I mentioned before, the ear is MUCH more forgiving of higher levels of analogue noise levels than it is digital noise. 1% euphonic distortion can sound better than .1% non-euphonic.

I know how hard it is to believe that a flat frequency response can solve most of the problems people have with their systems, but it's quite true. If certain frequencies are even a little bit boosted, they can mask the important upper harmonics that provide the presence and detail to the sound of instruments. Speakers and headphones are often rated to +/- 3db... 3db is MORE than enough to totally screw up harmonics. Harshness, glassiness, warmth, detail, transparency... these are ALL issues that are directly related to frequency response.

Properly balanced bass can make it MUCH easier for speakers to reproduce lower frequencies, eliminating the strain on the system caused by trying to deal with low frequency bumps and spikes. You've got a choice... You can spend a lot of money on equipment powerful enough to handle the bumps and spikes without strain, or you can balance the response and get even *better* sound out of less expensive equipment.

If you've never taken an HP signal generator and run a sweep through your system from 20Hz to 20kHz at several volume levels, you'll have no idea how imbalanced your system is. I've been lucky enough to have heard a system that is kept in perfect alignment like this, and I can tell you that no system I have ever heard at a high end stereo store has ever sounded this good on such a wide range of different CDs. The concept that better reproduction makes noisy recordings sound worse is completely wrong. It's much easier for the ear to tune out the noise when the spectrum is perrfectly balanced than it is when high mids are goosed to provide "added detail".

Flat is nothing like what you think it is... it's powerful bass with a punch and perfectly even reproduction all the way up through the lower mids. Very few systems nowadays have even reproduction all the way up... subwoofers with separate volume controls pretty much guarantee that the balance will have a bump in the crossover between the subwoofer and the mains. Flat reproduction has no midbass bump that masks lower frequencies or firebreaks in the bass response that makes acoustic basses sound like electronic basses. The mids on a flat system are smooth and clean with natural sounding timbres, presence and upper harmonics. The upper mids are smaller and better balanced than the way most systems today project, and it has highs that cut through cleanly without a hint of shrillness. When the frequencies are balanced the soundstage meshes better between the two speakers because the phase matches better, and this improves the depth of the sound as well.

Most audiophiles think of distortion as something separate from the frequency response, but it isn't... there's a reason it's called HARMONIC distortion. It's a measure of the imbalance of frequencies an octave above the fundamental. If your fundamental produces incorrect harmonics, it can cloud up the sound, making it muddy and opaque. Once you understand this, you can start to get an idea of how important flat response is.

The problem is, electronic music provides no baseline for what flat is... Some engineers don't even bother to calibrate their equipment any more. They mix to horribly unbalanced bookshelf speakers because that's what most people listen to music on. This results in music that hangs free in the spectrum with no relation to other recordings. If your speakers happen to precisely match the bookshelf speakers the engineer happened to mix on, the sound will be great. If you have any other speakers in the world, you are SOL. That wasn't the way it was in the analogue era. Every studio had the same JBL monitors and the whole system was calibrated with test tones to ensure that the sound at the recording stage in LA precisely matched the sound of the mixing stage in New York.

Equipment manufacturers don't help any by catering to consumers' demand for a wide variety of colored sound, further pushing sound away from any sort of baseline. People here on this board don't base their comments on any standard and freely compare one color of sound to another. They end up calling "violet" warm because it's warmer than the "blue" they are comparing it to... but it isn't warm compared to yellow or red! This endless cycle of colors forces audiophiles to buy equipment just to eventually tire of its colored presentation and switch to another color, and on and on.

But if you make flat frequency response your goal, you will take your current system and make it sound better and better as you get closer and closer. It's not nearly as easy as you think to achieve flat response... but at least you'll be moving progressively in the right direction.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Harshness and glassiness are imbalances of the upper mids.

Again too simplicistic. Although the coloring characteristic may match the described frequency response, the CD format doesn't generally suffer from upper-mid imbalances, nor does all of my playback gear show this very same weakness that makes it sensitive to a linear FR (supposed for the CD) as opposed to a nonlinear FR (supposed for analog sources). I have detected the CD's glassiness from the very beginning, with my first CD player, and although it's greatly reduced in my now high-end source, it's still somehow present. It's also explainable by the format's technical limitations.


Quote:

This is very common among headphones and speakers. Just about all systems today have boosted upper mids.

Really?

Not mine.

Quote:

As for digital noise, it's more common than you think. There's digital noise caused by clipping in many CDs.

I have very few CDs that are mixed so hot. Your explanations are oriented on very basic and obvious phenomena which have nothing to do with what I hear. I have experimented a lot with a high-quality parametric equalizer. There's more in audio than frequency response. If you occupy yourself with the characteristic of cables or amps, you'll encounter sonic phenomena that are not simulatable with equalizers.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ the CD format doesn't generally suffer from upper-mid imbalances

That's exactly my point. A CD player is a very accurate source. But headphones, and especially speakers do have upper-mid imbalances. If you EQ your cans to achieve perfectly flat response, and get your speakers balanced properly for your room, there'll be no glassiness or harshness, and just about any CD player will sound good.

Re: inbalanced frequency response of headphones and speakers
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Really? Not mine.

*ALL* headphones and speakers have frequency imbalances. Really good headphones are better at overall frequency balance than speakers are, but there's still a lot of room for error in individual frequencies. When a set of cans leaves the factory, the manufacturer matches the two drivers so their particular error is complementary to each other, and tests them to see if they perform within specs... but what happens when they burn in? The frequency balance shifts. That's why technical specifications are referred to as "tolerances" and the numbers give are *ranges*. Even with the highest quality control imaginable, one set of the best headphone made is going to perform a little differently than another of the same model. Errors as small as 1db in the wrong places can mess up the relationship of the the harmonic to the fundamental, or mask other frequencies elsewhere in the spectrum. "Almost flat" ain't the same thing as "flat".

With speakers, it's even more random. Even if you could manufacture a set of speakers that was totally flat (which isn't possible), the second you put them in a room, their performance would change. You can start ripping out walls and hanging acoustic tile to make the room suit the speakers, but it is a LOT easier to EQ the speakers to work well within the room.

Very few people have any idea of what flat sounds like. The only place you can hear it nowadays is at a classical concert. Rock shows are grossly unbalanced, and most home systems are no better. How does one go about achieving flat response... and how does one know that he's reached it when he gets there?

You have to have a baseline... a constant... a reference point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Your explanations are oriented on very basic and obvious phenomena which have nothing to do with what I hear. I have experimented a lot with a high-quality parametric equalizer. There's more in audio than frequency response. If you occupy yourself with the characteristic of cables or amps, you'll encounter sonic phenomena that are not simulatable with equalizers.

First of all, just playing around with an equalizer isn't the same as balancing a system. You can twiddle until the cows come home listening for what makes your CDs sound "good", but without a solid reference, you'll be parallel parking until the end of time.

The only way to achieve a flat response is to run a sweep with a tone generator and listen carefully for bumps and dips. Move slowly along, smoothing out uneveness with the equalizer as you go using a low volume level to start. Then do the same thing with a mid level, and then as loud as you can stand it. When you finish, go back through all three volume levels and check your work. This will take you the better part of a day, and you'll probably require further tweaks when your ears are rested.

Once you've done that, you'll find out how far from flat your speakers and cans actually are. You'll also find out that they probably don't respond the same at low volumes as they do at higher ones. But at least your compromise setting will be based on a solid reference.

It's fine diddling with the various minute (and questionable) differences between cables. If that makes you happy, swell. But the stuff that you are actually hearing isn't caused by the type of wind of the cable, it's caused by the "basic and obvious phenomena"... the balance of the frequencies, the effect the room has on the frequency response, the effect distortion has on the harmonic frequencies, and the way your system responds to changes in volume. If you don't have an equalizer, and if you don't know how to use one properly, the broad strokes are going to make a LOT more difference to what you're hearing than the minute (and questionable) ones.

That said, all the acoustic theories in the world won't make a lick of difference if your mind and your ears are closed to what you hear. If that's the case, then you're flying blind anyway, and throwing money at the problem is as good a way to get whereever it is you're going as any other.

See ya
Steve

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi buying good quantities of vinyl is a thing I'll deserve to my elderly age if my life will be lucky enough to get me rich enough to get some quantities and some quality turntable&rig - main problem are vinyls

It is true that if you start tying to max out an anolog rig it is major money. It is NOT true that it costs a lot to get a very good turntable and to start collecting vinyl. A used Rega P3 is around $450. I realize that is not cheap, but it can still be a lot less than upgrading a CD player, and it definitely puts you in the game in a solid way. And buying vinyl is actually one of the great pluses. Yes, audiophile pressings can cost an arm and a leg, but at used record shops you can pick up many titles for around $3 to $4 each. And then there are always garage sales, etc., if you have that sort of thing where you live. It is a lot of fun and will enlarge your world - give it a try!

 

[bigshot]

Here in Los Angeles, there's a monthly record swap meet at Pasadena City College where you can get all kinds of great records in clean shape for a dollar a disk. The only problem is hauling it all away. You need a wagon or a Sherpa bearer.

The entry level to good sounding vinyl is even lower than the $450 you mention. A Dual 1218 or 1228 (or 1219 or 1229) is about $100 and has the added benefit of being able to play 78s with a pitch adjustment of 5% either way. The Dual sounds great, it's well built and it won't wear out records. For most people it's a great turntable. I use one for 78s myself.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot *ALL* headphones and speakers have frequency imbalances.

What an insight!

But not all have such that cause glassiness with CDs -- and (accidentally) none with analogue sources.


Quote:

First of all, just playing around with an equalizer isn't the same as balancing a system. You can twiddle until the cows come home listening for what makes your CDs sound "good", but without a solid reference, you'll be parallel parking until the end of time. The only way to achieve a flat response is to run a sweep with a tone generator and listen carefully for bumps and dips.

That's one method, another, better one is pink noise. What makes you think you're the only one working seriously with an equalizer when you have one?

But as I said, threre's more in audio (even much more to be measured) than frequency response. Equalizing a system doesn't get rid of digital sound if it's there. Believe me.


Quote:

It's fine diddling with the various minute (and questionable) differences between cables. If that makes you happy, swell. But the stuff that you are actually hearing isn't caused by the type of wind of the cable, it's caused by the "basic and obvious phenomena"...

You have demonstrated enough that you're only sensitive to sonic phenomena on the level of sound transducers, such as your frequency response, and your obsession with proselytizing people into your view that only sound transducers cause sonic differences (because of their obvious FR flaws). So let's leave it at that. It has little to do with the thread subject.

 

[recstar24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L The kind of "analogue" or "liquid" CDP you're asking for tend to make many of these "digital" sounding CD's a lot more analogue and liquid than they ever recorded/mastered, "creating" liquidity where there aren't any in those CD pits. This has the benefit of making most of these 100 random CD's sound more listenable and enjoyable. Nothing wrong with that if you just want to enjoy as many CD's as possible and if you're extra sensitive to digititis and "digital" sound.

A great example that goes along with your requests and Jon L's post is the Meridian G08. Meridians have been known and still are for their smooth, non-fatiguing sound. Their output circuitry is very good and is designed well. The Meridian G08 has nicely executed upsampling, that does what Jon L is referring to. It makes CD's sound more analogue and liquid than they were recorded/mastered, so you get a very smooth, liquid, non-fatiguing sound.

However, you said you also wanted coherent timing, and while the Meridian is serviceable in that department, its actually one of its weak points, it sacrifices some rhythmic tightness for the sake of liquidity and soundstage. As comparison, Meridian is like Sennheiser vs. Naim which is kind of like Grado. The Meridians are slightly warm and smooth, great liquid sound with massive soundstage, at expense of sounding slightly slow, and some would even say veiled or unemotional.

If you want an analogue type sound with rhytmic tightness, a sound that is smooth, warm, yet extremely resolved and detailed with great punch and rhytmic drive, I haven't heard a CDP yet that can match even the most basic turntable in accomplishing such a wide variety of musical aspects so well. Of course,i would imagine something like the 10,000 crowd probably gets close,but i haven't heard any that price range.

 

[JefferyK]

My two cents...

First of all, all sound is analog.

When someone says he or she wants an "analog-ish" sound from his or her CDP, I usually presume that he or she wants a CDP that makes sound that is smooth and somewhat realistic.

This has nothing to do with specs. For example, entry-level Sony CDPs have fine specs. However, they sound terrible: strings don't sound like strings, bass guitar doesn't sound like bass guitar, etc. I believe this has to do with things such as power and the analog output stage, not speakers or headphones.

NAD and Rotel make musical, affordable CDPs. I'm sure folks out there can recommend musical CDPs that cost more.

Jeffery