Visit to Marc C.'s (SpiritOfMusic's) House in England

[PeterA]

Marc, at least you have the option of hiding everything like a server in that separate space at the back of your listening room. I would consider Ron's advice and build out that space, seal it with a door, and hide the gear away in there, at least the computer stuff. 853 makes a good point: switching to analog certainly has a steep learning curve too.

There are three advantages I see to computer audio, the three Cs: cost, convenience and content. I have yet to be convinced of the sonics, but they may be beside the point.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, when I've got time later I'll respond in more detail.
But for now, why would you hide away your streaming?
The dac I'm looking at, and especially the SGM, are fine pieces of audio gear with great aesthetics.
If I go streaming, it becomes part of the system, family etc.
Hiding it seems skewed if you don't mind me saying.

 

[Rodney Gold]

hiding it is perfect ..all you and family have to know is how to work an ipad or tablet..

 

[Barry]

There are three advantages I see to computer audio, the three Cs: cost, convenience and content. I have yet to be convinced of the sonics, but they may be beside the point.

I would have agreed with this until a month ago when I heard an Antipodes DX Gen 3 music server paired with a TIDAL Audio Camira DAC. The sound was terrific. Until then, I'd never heard a computer based audio system I liked or that even matched CDs. At some point next year I'll look into this. My main reference is analog too (new TT on the way). I didn't buy a serious SACD/CD player until 2007 because I never heard one I liked. Not exactly an early adopter....

 

[DaveC]

IMO, Blizzard was right. Why? Because you can make a digital copy of RtR or Vinyl that you can't tell from the real thing, or the differences are extremely slight. I think either the source material is the problem or the fact it doesn't have the artifacts associated with analog playback devices. With the best current tech A>D>A conversions can't be reliably heard either.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

IMO, Blizzard was right. Why? Because you can make a digital copy of RtR or Vinyl that you can't tell from the real thing, or the differences are extremely slight. I think either the source material is the problem or the fact it doesn't have the artifacts associated with analog playback devices. With the best current tech A>D>A conversions can't be reliably heard either.

now that is just 'not informed' (i'd use the word ignorant but it's not nice). Blizzard was just guessing. he had no knowledge of high level vinyl playback.

it's a pretty clear difference if you are trying to generalize. not that the digital is not really fine sounding.

but I suppose it comes down to one's definition of 'extremely slight'.

but there are so many levels of vinyl playback that you just cannot generalize how the formats compare. you have to get specific.

 

[DaveC]

now that is just 'not informed' (i'd use the word ignorant but it's not nice). Blizzard was just guessing. he had no knowledge of high level vinyl playback.

it's a pretty clear difference if you are trying to generalize. not that the digital is not really fine sounding.

but I suppose it comes down to one's definition of 'extremely slight'.

but there are so many levels of vinyl playback that you just cannot generalize how the formats compare. you have to get specific.

You did use the word ignorant and imo that's BS. Your opinion is not fact and isn't the only one that counts. I appreciate your experience and input but your post is extremely condescending. Folks in CO and the Colorado Audio Society have some decent gear and experience too. While I wasn't around for it they did a test of RtR ripped and played back on a Vivaldi stack and this was the consensus. My own experience points to this being the case too, the best digital is often directly recorded from analog sources and the difference vs the analog sources is most often very slight.

The whole point isn't to say that digital is as good as analog and to get into all the minutiae, but to point out that most often the issue is with the recording and not the format.

Maybe what I should have said is that Blizzard was far more right than most people are comfortable with.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You did use the word ignorant and imo that's BS. Your opinion is not fact and isn't the only one that counts. I appreciate your experience and input but your post is extremely condescending. Folks in CO and the Colorado Audio Society have some decent gear and experience too. While I wasn't around for it they did a test of RtR ripped and played back on a Vivaldi stack and this was the consensus. My own experience points to this being the case too, the best digital is often directly recorded from analog sources and the difference vs the analog sources is most often very slight.

The whole point isn't to say that digital is as good as analog and to get into all the minutiae, but to point out that most often the issue is with the recording and not the format.

Maybe what I should have said is that Blizzard was far more right than most people are comfortable with.

we will just have to disagree. my point being that you cannot generalize and paint with broad brushes. unless you have tip top levels of vinyl and tape to use you are just guessing about how it plays out.

 

[DaveC]

we will just have to disagree. my point being that you cannot generalize and paint with broad brushes. unless you have tip top levels of vinyl and tape to use you are just guessing about how it plays out.

Lol! You're totally missing the point...

 

[ALF]

Lol! You're totally missing the point...

...plus one.

Cheers,
ALF

 

[microstrip]

now that is just 'not informed' (i'd use the word ignorant but it's not nice). Blizzard was just guessing. he had no knowledge of high level vinyl playback.

it's a pretty clear difference if you are trying to generalize. not that the digital is not really fine sounding.

but I suppose it comes down to one's definition of 'extremely slight'.

but there are so many levels of vinyl playback that you just cannot generalize how the formats compare. you have to get specific.

Blizzard was just guessing and IMHO such theoretical debate is not relevant, because we only listen to implementations in our systems, built according to our preferences and the conclusions are only valid in our systems.

However, although I am not interested in Blizzard opinions, I would be very interested to know the direct opinions of, for example, the MSB or DCS designers about these aspects. Or about the subjective result of introducing a digital link formed by a top ADC and the MSB sellect II or the Vivaldi DAC in our analog systems. Yes, some audiophiles are curious people. I think it was mainly keeps us participating and disagreeing friendly in WBF.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I think the comparison was between an analog source vs the same source but ripped (digitised).
differences are really small in this regard

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think the comparison was between an analog source vs the same source but ripped (digitised).
differences are really small in this regard

I have 870 such rips (from vinyl or tape) to 2xdsd on my server. I enjoy them immensely.....and listen to them often.....but....

the differences are not really small. none of them. the differences are a punch in the nose.

y o u c a n n o t g e n e r a l I z e. p e r I o d.

 

[DaveC]

I have 870 such rips (from vinyl or tape) to 2xdsd on my server. I enjoy them immensely.....and listen to them often.....but....

the differences are not really small. none of them. the differences are a punch in the nose.

y o u c a n n o t g e n e r a l I z e. p e r I o d.

You said those rips were given to you. So you're not comparing them with the exact same analog rig they were produced on, which is an extremely important point... otherwise you're also comparing differences in analog playback rigs which can be very significant, of course.

Anyways, the point is a digitized copy of an analog source can be extremely close to the original analog source, and perceived "problems" with digital are most often due to the recording and not the format combined with lack of pleasurable distortion from the analog rig. IMO digital gets a bad rap because of it which isn't entirely deserved. If I didn't have digital playback I couldn't listen to all the wonderful vinyl and tape rips, which would make me sad... it's one good reason to have a digital/computer based rig imo.

 

[Al M.]

...plus one.

Cheers,
ALF

+ 2

 

[microstrip]

I have 870 such rips (from vinyl or tape) to 2xdsd on my server. I enjoy them immensely.....and listen to them often.....but....

the differences are not really small. none of them. the differences are a punch in the nose.
(...)

What was the hardware used in these rips? Were they carried in your system, using your top tape system?

 

[Ron Resnick]

You said those rips were given to you. So you're not comparing them with the exact same analog rig they were produced on, which is an extremely important point... otherwise you're also comparing differences in analog playback rigs which can be very significant, of course.

Anyways, the point is a digitized copy of an analog source can be extremely close to the original analog source . . . .

"Extremely close" still means slightly inferior. How important is that gap to each of us determines whether or not we are willing to trade the (at least slightly) superior sound of analog for the convenience of digital.

Even if "extremely close" why spend time listening to that even slightly inferior sound -- except to avoid getting up from the chair?

 

[DaveC]

Even if "extremely close" why spend time listening to that even slightly inferior sound -- except to avoid getting up from the chair?

For me it's more about the music... not everyone has vinyl or tape of everything they want to listen to and I'd hate to be limited to only playing analog sources.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Anyways, the point is a digitized copy of an analog source can be extremely close to the original analog source, (...)

We are entering marshy waters - what is meant by "extremely close"? Anyone will tell you that a Hi-Rez copy of a master tape is technically closer to the master than a vinyl pressing of this tape. But many will tell that perhaps not more enjoyable ...

We should remember that in listening tests in stereo people preferred the sound coming from a tape loop to the mic feed, finding it more real when compared to the original piano!

 

[bonzo75]

...plus one.

Cheers,
ALF

Minus 10