You're buying a 4k TV, so 4k blu-ray player would be an obvious choice. Oppo is discontinued, but if you can find one for a reasonable price I say go for it. I wouldn't pay any premium for it though. I think at least Panasonic is currently making high end blu-ray players, so if Oppos are hard to find, they might be worth it too. Cambridge Audio also made some interesting blu-ray players, not sure if they are planning to make new models.
What a long, strange trip it's been -- (Robert Hunter)
- Thread starter Baldr
- Start date
You're buying a 4k TV, so 4k blu-ray player would be an obvious choice. Oppo is discontinued, but if you can find one for a reasonable price I say go for it. I wouldn't pay any premium for it though. I think at least Panasonic is currently making high end blu-ray players, so if Oppos are hard to find, they might be worth it too. Cambridge Audio also made some interesting blu-ray players, not sure if they are planning to make new models.
judson_w
100+ Head-Fier
Went to the record shop this weekend and found an opera I remembered enjoying in high school, so I bought it. No research as to whether this is a better performance of Aida or not, but just put it in to enjoy while working.
I can tell it has been awhile. I was not ready for how quiet it starts. Then again, having the housemate vacuuming outside my room and construction going on outside did not create good quiet environment for my HD600s. Now that vacuuming is done and my window is closed, I can better appreciate the recording.
I can tell it has been awhile. I was not ready for how quiet it starts. Then again, having the housemate vacuuming outside my room and construction going on outside did not create good quiet environment for my HD600s. Now that vacuuming is done and my window is closed, I can better appreciate the recording.
bosiemoncrieff
Headphoneus Supremus
I think the Price/Vickers is the standard, but this is I'm sure a sumptuous reading orchestrally
judson_w
100+ Head-Fier
I might have to look up that version then. This is the 1988 digital remaster of the 1980 record. I do still feel that it is quieter than most other music I have listened to, but that could be due to being before the loudness war. (though I am also not sure how much the loudness war affected classical and opera recordings) As a result, I do feel there is some good dynamic range to it.
bosiemoncrieff
Headphoneus Supremus
I don't think the loudness wars affected classical much, though I do know the 1990 Solti Ring on CD is better than the two others - I think 1997 and like 2012?
Derrick Swart
Headphoneus Supremus
Yep, mainly very expensive cloth!
Pietro Cozzi Tinin
Headphoneus Supremus
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
1. You do not understand the technology, as you yourself clearly stated. (and most people here don't).
2. There's no reason to exclude other ways of technique other than messing up the result. How many DAC's did you test?
3. It's absolutely impossible that in a broad market like this where the techniques are well understood (by the manufacturers), only one party is able to bring it to fruition.
4. A highly intelligent and educated person like you just is not that un-critical. As in: This sounds very un-bosie.
Last edited:
Baldr
Sponsor: Schiit Audio
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Posts
- 943
- Likes
- 7,513
Hey there all – sorry so long without commenting. A couple of small points: please let me admit that I stream from time to time with two subscription services. The reason is that it is cheap. Lets me listen to a huc ton of music to see if I like it. By and large, it ain’t bad. When we get some URDs out in the field where it will be easy to for you to compare physical media to the streams. Now I know there are servers out there with accujack and autosuck which I believe many of you may like. Now I know a bit about jitter and can clean up streams to where they get better but I still bet my accujack and autosuck on physical media.
Speaking about URDs, I know there aren’t any out there. Problem is we have so many parts shortages combined with AKM factory blazes that I have been fixing our existing stuff. Damn! It seems hard to get everything from lumber to microprocessors to gas to cheeseburgers. Everyone says its covid still causing this. Gotta have something to blame, I guess. Many suppliers too often look/sound like well executed holograms who can’t get around their offices without radar. I tire of the quacking of incompetent ducks.
Speaking about URDs, I know there aren’t any out there. Problem is we have so many parts shortages combined with AKM factory blazes that I have been fixing our existing stuff. Damn! It seems hard to get everything from lumber to microprocessors to gas to cheeseburgers. Everyone says its covid still causing this. Gotta have something to blame, I guess. Many suppliers too often look/sound like well executed holograms who can’t get around their offices without radar. I tire of the quacking of incompetent ducks.
Ninhalem
New Head-Fier
@Baldr
Does this mean that the URD will move to ESS from AKM? How much of a lift is that going to be?
Does this mean that the URD will move to ESS from AKM? How much of a lift is that going to be?
Baldr
Sponsor: Schiit Audio
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Posts
- 943
- Likes
- 7,513
Well, it seems there are two technical versions of DACs we make which have very different competing chipsets. DS, delta sigma, reduced bit which are dominated now by ESS and AKM before their fire. The sonic differences between these two brands of chips do exist, although subtle in the context of ds vs multibit technology.
There are those of you who may prefer the sound of AKM and those of you who may prefer ESS. These differences are quite subtle as they are living in our two hundredish dollar and down D/A converter universe. I prefer multibit (the other main technical version of D/A converters - dominated by TI and Analog Devices), but that will set you back about half again as much from us, and much more from others.
All of the above is quite irrelevant with URD, as it is a transport which has no audio D/A chips at all.
There are those of you who may prefer the sound of AKM and those of you who may prefer ESS. These differences are quite subtle as they are living in our two hundredish dollar and down D/A converter universe. I prefer multibit (the other main technical version of D/A converters - dominated by TI and Analog Devices), but that will set you back about half again as much from us, and much more from others.
All of the above is quite irrelevant with URD, as it is a transport which has no audio D/A chips at all.
Baldr
Sponsor: Schiit Audio
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Posts
- 943
- Likes
- 7,513
Mosquito farts, lab coats, and incomplete "science"
In this missive I address the worship of one false audio god, namely the assumption of the valid “science” of audio measurement circa 2021. What’s wrong with measuring audio equipment? Nothing actually as long as you understand that these measurements have little to do with how well this equipment will cater to the type of sound you like. Utterly useless. The only exception is if the measurements are really, really awful.
A number of measurement parameters have been defined such as distortion (IM and harmonic), linearity, and noise. You can add wow, flutter, and speed accuracy for analog sources. Current measurement tech for DACs cover a dynamic range of greater than 120db even up to 140db. The machines that measure this kind of dynamic range have car type price stickers. Back in the analog days 70 db dynamic range was pretty damn good. I remember being at a AES convention in the early 80s (when notoriously bad sounding digital in the form of CDs); they sold t-shirts emblazoned with “Digital Finishes What the Transistor Began”. Early digital, for all of its 90-100 db dynamic really sucked, and most of the engineers admitted it. Back then, it was widely known that measurements were not completely defined to a level that could reproducibly be definitive with human hearing. Fast forward to today, there has been no change.
These guys that sell the pricey measurement gear will have you believe that low level (>80 db) is vital for good sound. Let me put that in perspective. If one attends a concert, -110db (or greater) levels are going to be at the level of mosquito farts. How about inaudible. Up above -80 or so db – that is where the measurements that we haven’t figured out yet are important.
Before you consider me to be hopelessly atavistic, I do feel that measurements can be important for example in production test to find faults in various products. Now if I want to be a poser, I could put on a lab-coat, strike a Napoleonic, hand in coat image, and brag about my newest, car priced Audio hand job analyzer, based on “science”. This analyzer is of course the ultimate arbiter of what you want for your system.
I tire of hearing about “science”. When I was a kid, big oil and petrochemicals owned the media. They ran public service ads on TV based on incomplete science or “science” – A slogan was “DDT is good for our kids” - More vegetables for them to eat. Yeah!
The moral is get what audio gear you like.
In this missive I address the worship of one false audio god, namely the assumption of the valid “science” of audio measurement circa 2021. What’s wrong with measuring audio equipment? Nothing actually as long as you understand that these measurements have little to do with how well this equipment will cater to the type of sound you like. Utterly useless. The only exception is if the measurements are really, really awful.
A number of measurement parameters have been defined such as distortion (IM and harmonic), linearity, and noise. You can add wow, flutter, and speed accuracy for analog sources. Current measurement tech for DACs cover a dynamic range of greater than 120db even up to 140db. The machines that measure this kind of dynamic range have car type price stickers. Back in the analog days 70 db dynamic range was pretty damn good. I remember being at a AES convention in the early 80s (when notoriously bad sounding digital in the form of CDs); they sold t-shirts emblazoned with “Digital Finishes What the Transistor Began”. Early digital, for all of its 90-100 db dynamic really sucked, and most of the engineers admitted it. Back then, it was widely known that measurements were not completely defined to a level that could reproducibly be definitive with human hearing. Fast forward to today, there has been no change.
These guys that sell the pricey measurement gear will have you believe that low level (>80 db) is vital for good sound. Let me put that in perspective. If one attends a concert, -110db (or greater) levels are going to be at the level of mosquito farts. How about inaudible. Up above -80 or so db – that is where the measurements that we haven’t figured out yet are important.
Before you consider me to be hopelessly atavistic, I do feel that measurements can be important for example in production test to find faults in various products. Now if I want to be a poser, I could put on a lab-coat, strike a Napoleonic, hand in coat image, and brag about my newest, car priced Audio hand job analyzer, based on “science”. This analyzer is of course the ultimate arbiter of what you want for your system.
I tire of hearing about “science”. When I was a kid, big oil and petrochemicals owned the media. They ran public service ads on TV based on incomplete science or “science” – A slogan was “DDT is good for our kids” - More vegetables for them to eat. Yeah!
The moral is get what audio gear you like.
Last edited:
Ableza
Headphoneus Supremus
As someone who used to be paid a nice salary for doing nothing but taking measurements (and then thinking to myself, "this thing exceeds all the measurement criteria and I can check the box to certify it, but why does it sound like crap?") I wish I could like Mikes post about 10^4 times.
golfbravobravo
Headphoneus Supremus
The stick works but is realllllllllllllllyyyyy slow.....
Users who are viewing this thread
