State-of-the-Art Digital

[bonzo75]

They're not audiophiles, that's why. The don't give a fart about comparing gear. They figure they know the sound of their Steinway or voice of their Opera singer wife, and are pleased to have found something that reproduces that sound faithfully, warts and all. If you tell them to listen to something that'll make their own recordings sound more beautiful than reality, it's no different as if you told them it alters the sound any other way, and they lose interest in the proposition.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Exactly, then why quote in an audiophile compare thread. I totally get a lot of non audiophiles or not so keen audiophiles own components, but their choices don't help us as they are not based on sonics. They own, because they bought

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not only that: I have no problems admitting I could live with e.g. your favored GG1 with KR242 tubes even though I'm realizing full well what I'm hearing is far removed from what's on the source file - it sounds powerful as you've repeatedly pointed out, I'd like to add: unashamedly sporting some of the most full-breasted colorations I've ever heard in a DAC, the musical equivalent of cozying up to a hot stove in winter. I have absolutely no qualms with unrealistically beautiful digital playback: who and what are we, audiophiles and music lovers, or measurement equipment assigning marks for accuracy?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

this was my perspective (with my GG1.5--KR242) too, although your take is maybe more extreme than mine on degrees of coloration. i simply preferred a less colored take on the music in my particular system. however; i would choose this 'take' maybe with some other systems as i really fully enjoyed it. it did have a raw 'unfettered' energy i miss.

 

[acousticsguru]

Exactly, then why quote in an audiophile compare thread. I totally get a lot of non audiophiles or not so keen audiophiles own components, but their choices don't help us as they are not based on sonics. They own, because they bought

You're kidding, right? You want to make believe the choice of equipment of musicians, recording engineers and producers are not based on sonics? And yet, you'll buy recordings, even spend money on gear to improve playback quality? Ever considered the term "audiophile" may be more aptly used for them (the love of sound = music) than us (the love of sound = HiFi components)?

I believe I mentioned this earlier, but I could never stop myself asking questions like "does this sound like a human voice", "does this make believe there's someone here with me in my listening room" etc., rather than "do I like what I'm hearing"? If the term "audiophile" is reserved for the latter only, then perhaps I'm not an audiophile either.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes it is not. Unless you are an OCD audiophile you can buy many things and all of them can equally suspend disbelief. You accept it is not real but that's what you have and that's what you listen. Forums like these are to compare sonics, but for someone who is not interested in auditioning, he can be equally happy or unhappy with a large range of components.

 

[acousticsguru]

Yes it is not. Unless you are an OCD audiophile you can buy many things and all of them can equally suspend disbelief. You accept it is not real but that's what you have and that's what you listen. Forums like these are to compare sonics, but for someone who is not interested in auditioning, he can be equally happy or unhappy with a large range of components.

A musician will mentally compare what he or she hears to the real-life voice or instrument. There's no need to compare components and put those on a scale reaching anywhere from "I like that sound" to "I don't like that sound". They'll listen to playback and immediately dismiss it on the basis of distortion, coloration etc. - anything that makes it sound unlike what they hear in practice or in concert.

What the audiophile customer does is compare gear to gear, and decide from there. Comparisons are odious. Irrelevant even. Hence also the improper use of the term "analogue" among audiophiles. What it really means is proportionate. It's not about the sound of analogue versus digital, but the "thing itself". That's how a musician listens to equipment.

Violinist Anne-Sophie once said in an interview: "I want to be heard." That says it all.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

"To put it differently, I know at least three dCS owners whom I told about our Lampizator weekends, and who couldn't be bothered to audition one"

I totally understand why people who assume and don't listen will end up with dCS. You are an exception times two that you listen and yet end up with dCS

I appreciate reading your direct opinions on what you listened, a lot less on indirect testimonies of others - something that was not allowed in audio news groups in the past, and is common in WBF. "A friend of mine told me that ..." counts zero for me , YMMV.

I admit that many people will prefer the Lampizator, but I after what I read about it , mainly in WBF, I do not feel tempted to use as my main digital source. Surely audiophile curiosity would push me to listen to the Pacific , my reduced experience with the brand was some years ago with cheaper units in show conditions.

Edit - meanwhile I was writing, David wrote my argument better than I would in the previous post , little to add.

 

[microstrip]

Hmmm...I don't see a cd transport in your gear list...what are you driving the KSL-DAC with?

Unfortunately the Calypso Metronome did not sound as I expected with it - I still clearly prefer it with the Metronome C2A, my best match is the DCS Vivaldi transport with the clock.

 

[bonzo75]

A musician will mentally compare what he or she hears to the real-life voice or instrument. There's no need to compare components and put those on a scale reaching anywhere from "I like that sound" to "I don't like that sound". They'll listen to playback and immediately dismiss it on the basis of distortion, coloration etc. - anything that makes it sound unlike what they hear in practice or in concert.

What the audiophile customer does is compare gear to gear, and decide from there.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.

And none of them will live up to real, and that is where he will suspend disbelief quite easily.

 

[bonzo75]

PS: I have watched ASM a few times, she is boring.

 

[bonzo75]

I admit that many people will prefer the Lampizator, but I after what I read about it , mainly in WBF, I do not feel tempted to use as my main digital source.

Which means you are both not listening and reading. Lol. At least do one thing well.

 

[microstrip]

Would be interesting to hear how you feel the Vivaldi and Kondo DAC compare

Too different to explain in my words. The Kondo has less extremities and full range information, but would feel more comfortable for casual listening. Unless our system has the ability to proper display the full information of the Vivaldi, particularly the natural space and easiness dealing with complex music and clear articulation , the main difference is fullness, detail and the easy going of the Kondo DSL. Please note that my system is optimized for the DCS Vivaldi - IMHO comparing them with the XLF and VTL's if unfair. Unfortunately I never did it in the SoundLab's.

 

[acousticsguru]

PS: I have watched ASM a few times, she is boring.

Her take on classical warhorses is becoming increasingly vulgar, is how I'd put it. I heard her play the Beethoven once in London where I broke into tears as it was a transcendental experience. Same violinist. That doesn't disprove my point: what is it that musicians want from equipment? Not the equipment. That's what audiophiles want.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

Which means you are both not listening and reading. Lol. At least do one thing well.

Such elaborate and deep comment coming from you is a message of praise and laudation. Many thanks for your support to keep the WBF discussions at an high level!

 

[acousticsguru]

Yes it is not. Unless you are an OCD audiophile you can buy many things and all of them can equally suspend disbelief. You accept it is not real but that's what you have and that's what you listen. Forums like these are to compare sonics, but for someone who is not interested in auditioning, he can be equally happy or unhappy with a large range of components.

Those people you're talking about aren't anywhere to be found on a forum like this. That's why we are here.

They own, because they bought

You may want to consider taking your own medicine: you own, and wherever I see your moniker pop up on forums, you defend your buying decision. Musicians, and in more general terms, those people whose open-mindedness you're misjudging as narrow-mindedness, will replace equipment in a blink once they come across something that sounds truer to life. Most of the time, when one talks to a professional musician, they couldn't so much as tell you what brand(s) they're using. The only piece of "equipment" they own to which they share an emotional attachment comparable to yours, is their instrument (if they're intrumentalists). They can go on for hours about the sound of a violin, a cello, a piano. But a piece of electrical equipment? Means to end.

And of course they listen - only with a differently trained ear. It's about how beautiful "they" or their instrument sounds, if they even so much as recognize themselves (which is why their definition of better or worse is deviation from the truth - either way). They're taking the term "high fidelity" more literally than we audiophiles do.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

I would pay to hear them in a direct comparison. My impression from what I've heard is twofold, firstly a matter of "missing the forest for the trees" (= i.e. neither DAC is perfect, but it is no secret which errs on the side of missing the forrest rather than the trees and vice versa), and secondly, that the beautiful-sounding Kondo actually has a sonic signature, one might even say a memorable one at that, whereas that of the Vivaldi becomes awfully hard to pin down in words once one has heard it in a variety of systems.(...) .

Yes, both the Kondo DAC and Meronome system have clear sound signatures, but very agreeable ones, I must say. However sometimes on very specific recording this sound signature has non predictable (at less for me) effects - a recording I assumed was great sounds regular, nothing special - the natural atmosphere of the recording vanishes.

I often say I only discovered how good DG recordings really were when I listened to them with DCS equipment in adequate systems, and this long before the Vivaldi's.

 

[acousticsguru]

Yes, both the Kondo DAC and Meronome system have clear sound signatures, but very agreeable ones, I must say. However sometimes on very specific recording this sound signature has non predictable (at less for me) effects - a recording I assumed was great sounds regular, nothing special.

I often say I only discovered how good DG recordings really were when I listened to them with DCS equipment in adequate systems, and this long before the Vivaldi's.

Those "golden age" DG recordings of which so many audiophiles claim they sound vile? I know exactly what you mean.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

Yes, both the Kondo DAC and Meronome system have clear sound signatures, but very agreeable ones, I must say. However sometimes on very specific recording this sound signature has non predictable (at less for me) effects - a recording I assumed was great sounds regular, nothing special - the natural atmosphere of the recording vanishes.

I often say I only discovered how good DG recordings really were when I listened to them with DCS equipment in adequate systems, and this long before the Vivaldi's.

This may be the reason why I, personally, don't own chocolate sauce equipment (and no, I'm not referring to the Kondo - I'd love that): because it never seems to work on those recordings that would most need it. I'm being ironic to some extent, but it's true: I'd buy an additional DAC in a split-second if it promised to play back those recordings well that scream for "improvement".

When I think about the improvement of dCS over the years, I'd say that whereas I truly loved the sound of a third of digital recordings, the modern ones may have upped the ante to two-thirds. So, whoever is making or touting a DAC that's "better" will have to prove their point to me on the remaining third.

Some of the audiophiles I've lately met are the complete opposite: they'll say things like "I only listen to DSD256 because it sounds so wonderful". What goes through my mind at that moment is: "Is he really listening to the same dozen available recordings over and over again" and "what about 99.9% of the music I own and love" (20TB or more)?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bonzo75]

Those people you're talking about aren't anywhere to be found on a forum like this. That's why we are here.



You may want to consider taking your own medicine: you own, and wherever I see your moniker pop up on forums, you defend your buying decision. Musicians, and in more general terms, those people whose open-mindedness you're misjudging as narrow-mindedness, will replace equipment in a blink once they come across something that sounds truer to life. Most of the time, when one talks to a professional musician, they couldn't so much as tell you what brand(s) they're using. The only piece of "equipment" they own to which they share an emotional attachment comparable to yours, is their instrument (if they're intrumentalists). They can go on for hours about the sound of a violin, a cello, a piano. But a piece of electrical equipment? Means to end.

And of course they listen - only with a differently trained ear. It's about how beautiful "they" or their instrument sounds, if they even so much as recognize themselves (which is why their definition of better or worse is deviation from the truth - either way). They're taking the term "high fidelity" more literally than we audiophiles do.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

My buying decisions? In most cases I have defended components many months before buying, and often have not even bought them due to budget or other priorities. Unless you are reading only my Lampi posts. I don't own VDH Stradivarius, Vyger, brinkmann balance, YG, many other analog stuff, audionet, top wing red sparrow on a linear tracker, defended Allnic much earlier before buying and after selling, and defended many amps I don't own. So you clearly misspoke. Don't own apogees or any horns I defended either, the horn drivers I did a lot of research and bought a couple of them later. And defend other drivers that I don't own. Even when I owned and wanted to sell my koetsu I said don't like it and after selling say I don't like it

 

[morricab]

It's nonetheless understandable, perhaps more so to classical music buffs and concertgoers (although I'm convinced I've heard aging rock singers suffer from the exact same type of strain). Once one hears an aging baritone (I'm afraid to mention names, but I could think of at least two that are still alive and kicking, but whose voices have been slowly taking on this quality) performing e.g. some Schubert or Schumann (oh, how do I love those!) Lieder cycles, it's pretty clear that while acoustics can't really improve matters, they can make matters significantly worse. My guess is that it's because human hearing is most sensitive in the exact frequency range in which a singer's voice tends to become strained no doubt as a result of the many years of overexertion.

There may be no hiding in front of a microphone, but I believe what the Lieder and Opera aficionados here are saying is that, once one's heard this metallic "quality" live, it's easier to put into perspective hearing the same in one's home system (where, if one never attended concerts, let alone experienced it in a range of concert halls - e.g. St. Gallen or Munich tend to stress this unfortunate frequency range more than Zürich, to give examples in our neighborhood - one might indeed think something's wrong with one's home system).

Thinking about it now that we're discussing it, I don't remember ever having been in a concert hall that managed to dampen that exact section of the midrange, and only that. Apparently, that would have to be quite a feat in acoustical treatment.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

P.S.
Someone mentioned female singers appear to suffer less from this type of vocal strain. At least two singers who are no longer with us immediately spring to mind, Kirsten Flagstad and Lisa Della Casa (more rarely, no doubt because she quit early) in their later records. But it's true that I could probably come up with a longer list of male singers, too.

STrained and "metallic" are not really the same thing...I know what you mean by strained but not metallic in the context of live singing. On recordings there are lots of electronic artifacts and/or speaker artifacts that can cause something like that.

 

[morricab]

I would pay to hear them in a direct comparison. My impression from what I've heard is twofold, firstly a matter of "missing the forest for the trees" (= i.e. neither DAC is perfect, but it is no secret which errs on the side of missing the forrest rather than the trees and vice versa), and secondly, that the beautiful-sounding Kondo actually has a sonic signature, one might even say a memorable one at that, whereas that of the Vivaldi becomes awfully hard to pin down in words once one has heard it in a variety of systems. I have much more experience with different dCS models than Kondo, and of the other usual suspects, I got a chance to listen to a number of Lampizator occasionally, yet e.g. MSB, Playback designs etc. only occasionally - so one would think I should be more qualified to describe the sonic signature of dCS better than people who occasionally hear it in unknown systems at trade shows, instead of a number of systems they know and lived to hear evolve over the years, compared different components in etc. & etc. And yet, I find it most difficult to describe the sonic signature of a modern dCS DAC (especially following the Version 2.0 hardware and software updates). They've continually evolved into the direction of leaving a lesser signature of their own, so that in the systems I know, it becomes increasingly clear that whatever minor flaw one might attribute to the source, one will have to find elsewhere in the system. To pour less or no chocolate sauce over said flaws, they really tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Which is why I said earlier that taking this path may lead to frustration and I wouldn't recommend it (the handful few to whom I would recommend it incidentally tend to be the ones that wouldn't heed my advice in the first place).

To put it differently, I know at least three dCS owners whom I told about our Lampizator weekends, and who couldn't be bothered to audition one, whereas I appear to be the only one in our local circle of audiophiles who finds something (admittedly different) to like about dCS, Kondo, Lampizator, MSB, Playback Designs (if only the DSD playback there) etc., but then, my priority is music and the sound of music, plus I may have an easier time as I don't have a horse in this.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Aren't you using a DCS dac?