All that is wrong with "HiFi"

This is a subject that has driven me crazy, especially since the obsessive drive for more "detail" has risen to insane proportions. But the departure from "musically correct" reproduction didn't begin there.

No. It actually began with the use of high feedback in the pursuit of vanishingly low harmonic distortion. This inturn led to the focus of designing solely by numbers as a dominating criteria instead of listening to what truly sounds good, and what doesn't. This has proven to be a mistake time and time again, but few have seemed to learn from it.

What I hear when I listen to the majority of modern hifi components and systems is a bright, hard and fatiguing presentation, often bordering on severe stridency while being harmonically distorted and/or threadbare, and noticeably lacking in musically engaging qualities. What you end up with is an over-hyped sonic microscope that is overly detailed and brutally revealing of everything that is wrong with the recording.

The problem compounding this is that nearly all of the so-called hifi components that I have heard over the last 40 years clearly displays one or more of the above traits to the level of distraction, especially since the majority of them often possess distorted and/or unrefined high frequencies. You may not be able to hear it as well as I do, but I am really sensitive to it.

To sum up this rant, I would like to say that I am looking to form a conglomerate of audio-oriented manufacturing associates with the goal of producing more musically correct components at reasonable prices.

 

was it not about what is wrong with HIFI?

Yes.

 

The discussion was about whether CD could always be classed as lossless, not sure why you're suggesting I was talking about dynamic compression?

The reason I brought it up was because you wrote it in the first place, and then doubled down.

Discussing if CD (you mean actual CDs, the redbook format?) can be considered lossless is a weird question. It is a format with is own resolution and specs. If it is the result of a down sample from a superior format, it is lossy transfer. If it is an original release, it just is what it is. If you are discussing about general capabilities, I like higher resolution formats much better, for a lot of reasons. All formats are limited. But the recording process is the real issue (by very, very far), not the format.

 

That is a rather strange way to argue, did Telarc confirm they compressed the master digital recording? did they confirm they did compress the initial digital recording, or not?

There is an abundance of literature on recording and mastering techniques, try read up on it first. Compression is a technique that CAn be used but it does not HAVE to be used and its use is not exclusive to digital (not at all).

MarcelNL:

Does Vinyl Actually Sound Better? - The Sound of Vinyl

If you ask a vinylhead why they love vinyl records, there are a few answers you’ll get. Some people love the physical, tangible aspect of owning their favorite records on vinyl. Instead of just streaming the tracks, they’re able to physically place the disc onto the turntable. For others, it’s...

thesoundofvinyl.us

"CD’s could hold more information than a tape or a record, and they were a lot smaller, too. This was a perfect solution to the problem of the time. It provided a simple, convenient way to store music, take it on the go, and CDs were cheaper to manufacture than vinyl records, too.

So how did they do it? How were they able to store more information on a smaller medium? The answer is simple: compression."

"If you’re listening to the record on vinyl, all of the original data is still present. On CDs or through a streaming service, you’re losing the majority of the detail, ... ."

And:

Does Vinyl Sound Better? Here's How it Compares to Digital

We’ll explain how vinyl works and why compression is bad while dynamic range is good, answering the question, does vinyl sound better

www.av.com

"Vinyl records take their information from the “master copy”. This copy is the purest format, allowing the full dynamic range to be heard. Digital formats, on the other hand, have an additional level of gain – and they’re compressed, meaning they sound louder and thinner at the same time."

 

As I become more settled with my system, it’s less about the hobby and the gear, and more and more about the music.

The only thing I would consider substituting in your post is the words “listening experience” for your last word “sound”.

Great point of reflection… the listening experience is a lot more than just the sound. It’s a cumulative construct shaped also by the environment and underpinned by both the spirit of the room and the system and the personal connection to the music that we play.

Listening experience is a totally summative thing for me that factors in the created vibe and atmosphere and spirit of it all coming together in an way that opens us up to a more blissful and easier connection and for me much better engagement and just more joy.

 

MarcelNL:

Does Vinyl Actually Sound Better? - The Sound of Vinyl

If you ask a vinylhead why they love vinyl records, there are a few answers you’ll get. Some people love the physical, tangible aspect of owning their favorite records on vinyl. Instead of just streaming the tracks, they’re able to physically place the disc onto the turntable. For others, it’s...

thesoundofvinyl.us

"CD’s could hold more information than a tape or a record, and they were a lot smaller, too. This was a perfect solution to the problem of the time. It provided a simple, convenient way to store music, take it on the go, and CDs were cheaper to manufacture than vinyl records, too.

So how did they do it? How were they able to store more information on a smaller medium? The answer is simple: compression."

"If you’re listening to the record on vinyl, all of the original data is still present. On CDs or through a streaming service, you’re losing the majority of the detail, ... ."

And:

Does Vinyl Sound Better? Here's How it Compares to Digital

We’ll explain how vinyl works and why compression is bad while dynamic range is good, answering the question, does vinyl sound better

www.av.com

"Vinyl records take their information from the “master copy”. This copy is the purest format, allowing the full dynamic range to be heard. Digital formats, on the other hand, have an additional level of gain – and they’re compressed, meaning they sound louder and thinner at the same time."

that it is on the internet does not mean it's true....I can show you where folks are saying the earth is flat ;-)

audio on CD is not necessarily compressed, in any different way than on Vinyl. Yes, the recording/mastering at some point is lossy since it typically samples at 44Khz.

Read up on Nyquist

Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway; plenty of 'hifi' still is horrible when using Vinyl as source, implementation is key, both for Analog and Digital.

 

It would help if you had better technical understanding before you posted such nonsense. CD quality digital is *not* compressed, only MP3 digital or AAC digital are (the latter being the YouTube format on which for some reason some audiophiles like to post system videos). Study the Shannon-Nyquist theorem for bandwidth limited signals. All the information is preserved up to the upper bandwidth limit, there is no compression. In the case of CD, bandwidth is up to 20 kHz, the upper limit of human hearing.

Of course, all this is different from dynamic and other compression that is applied to the recording. But the digital medium itself has no compression.

The description i quote actually from book i red called Non-liner editing, about convert analog video to computer for digital editing purpose. He explain digital problem as i mentioned, I think he is talking in general, possibly meant for video like DVD, not CD audio. Perhaps i took liberty and expand it to CD. I understand "might" not accurate or create confusion, i apologized for that!

I actually pointing toward fundamental problem rather aspect technicality, trying simplify understanding about digital because there is confusion. I choose word "compressed" because become common language for digital controversy and may not technically apply to CD. When i listen to CD i found the sound somehow shrink, like i quote: large fonts vs smaller, in better word: like compressed even its technically 100% uncompressed.

Might come for other places: bit rate, sampling, digital gear, ... . But who cares really!. All these technical data (16 bit or 32 bit, ...), can be useless. What really matter is making a test and see the results.

Pardon me if i say that: people who support digital always have high or complex speech, math's and numbers, like from advanced world. While analog people like little educated, Its not like that!

My examples: I have vinyl album from Telarc and same on CD, my understanding its fundamentally digital recording, but there is significant distance between them. I asked expert at that time, he explain something about CD limitation.
These LPs can found new, anyone can make test.

Another: I have first LP digital recording from mid 80's, inside brochure have explanation how its superiors to analog recording. Its pretty close, but not superiors, as far my ears tell.

Another: i compare tape cassette player (retail $500) toward expensive CD player (above $10.000), Cassette wins in overall. Repeat same thing with VHS, and turntable cost $2000, the last two are noticeable better.

 

I'll go beyond textbooks to my personal experience. In late 2020 I replaced my 15 year old CD player with the Ayon Stealth DAC and CD Transport. I played mainly vinyl for years and for decades I believed that CDs could not match the resolution and detail of vinyl. My new digital front end turned my world upside down. Suddenly I was hearing details in my CDs that I had never heard before. I listened to my CD collection for months with fascination. One year ago I changed DACs, not because I was unhappy with my Ayon gear but out of curiosity. My new digital system went to the next level in sound and also added one more most excellent benefit- PRaT. Now on my system at least, and to my ears, the sound of digital and analog have converged. I can play records or I can play digital with equal enjoyment. I will break it down here into three formats. It could even be four formats if I were to separate out vinyl with digital mastering from the vinyl with analog mastering. But for now I will leave vinyl as one format. The other formats are CD and Hi Res digital. I am not going to break out CD spinning and streaming here because on my rig they are now too close to call. And that can be another discussion.

The recording and mastering process as well as the final product- the album contain a lot of variation from album to album regardless of format. That means the sound quality of playback of the three formats overlap. I have vinyl records going back to the 1950s but the bulk of them are from the 1970s and 1980s ranging from Rock, Pop, Jazz, Classical and Folk. I have some records from the 1990s but we can assume those were digitally mastered (as well as some 1980s pressings). I have just a handful of recent pressings because I have found many of them to be unsatisfactory. I have collected Chesky records, Mobile Fidelity, Blue Note etc and my most precious, For Duke on M+K. Clearly, For Duke goes into the Best of the Best Vinyl column. And so does a Blue Note Jazz pressing as well as couple of Japanese and UK pressings.

Vinyl has the widest variation of sound quality. My vinyl collection contains the Best of the Best sound (For Duke for one) and the Worst of the Worst sound (many Columbia label rock albums). The Best of the Best vinyl has great detail and resolution. The highs are to die for. Bass is crisp and clear and the mids and voices give me chills. Sound stage is large and airy. Instruments and voices have a 3D quality that makes you feel like you could reach out and touch them. The noise floor is quiet but cannot quite match the noise floor of digital. On the best records it is close.

CDs sound amazing. The variation in sound quality is not as big as with vinyl but it is perhaps more to do with the recording/mastering process more than the format. The worst CDs sound worse than average vinyl. I have come across some CD copies of older albums that were just not well done. Toss the CD and stick to the vinyl version. The best CDs come close to the best vinyl but do not quite match the large, airy sound stage of vinyl. But the best CDs are remarkably good. On my system now, vinyl has no advantage over CDs when it comes to detail and resolution.

Hi Res files sound amazing. The Best of the Best Hi Res matches my Best of the Best vinyl and probably would say even a bit better because of the slightly lower noise floor. The highs are so good. Voices give me chills and the bass is as good as vinyl. The Sound stage is large and airy. The instruments and singers have a 3D feel and that amazing imaging that makes me feel like I could reach out and touch them. Not all Hi Res is great. I have heard some versions of albums in Hi Res that do not sound as good as their CD counter parts.

In summary, all three formats are great listening. Average CD is better than average Vinyl. Average Hi Res is better than average CD but the Best of the Best Vinyl and Best of the Best Hi Res are the tops.

 

I'll go beyond textbooks to my personal experience. In late 2020 I replaced my 15 year old CD player with the Ayon Stealth DAC and CD Transport. I played mainly vinyl for years and for decades I believed that CDs could not match the resolution and detail of vinyl. My new digital front end turned my world upside down. Suddenly I was hearing details in my CDs that I had never heard before. I listened to my CD collection for months with fascination. One year ago I changed DACs, not because I was unhappy with my Ayon gear but out of curiosity. My new digital system went to the next level in sound and also added one more most excellent benefit- PRaT. Now on my system at least, and to my ears, the sound of digital and analog have converged. I can play records or I can play digital with equal enjoyment. I will break it down here into three formats. It could even be four formats if I were to separate out vinyl with digital mastering from the vinyl with analog mastering. But for now I will leave vinyl as one format. The other formats are CD and Hi Res digital. I am not going to break out CD spinning and streaming here because on my rig they are now too close to call. And that can be another discussion.

The recording and mastering process as well as the final product- the album contain a lot of variation from album to album regardless of format. That means the sound quality of playback of the three formats overlap. I have vinyl records going back to the 1950s but the bulk of them are from the 1970s and 1980s ranging from Rock, Pop, Jazz, Classical and Folk. I have some records from the 1990s but we can assume those were digitally mastered (as well as some 1980s pressings). I have just a handful of recent pressings because I have found many of them to be unsatisfactory. I have collected Chesky records, Mobile Fidelity, Blue Note etc and my most precious, For Duke on M+K. Clearly, For Duke goes into the Best of the Best Vinyl column. And so does a Blue Note Jazz pressing as well as couple of Japanese and UK pressings.

Vinyl has the widest variation of sound quality. My vinyl collection contains the Best of the Best sound (For Duke for one) and the Worst of the Worst sound (many Columbia label rock albums). The Best of the Best vinyl has great detail and resolution. The highs are to die for. Bass is crisp and clear and the mids and voices give me chills. Sound stage is large and airy. Instruments and voices have a 3D quality that makes you feel like you could reach out and touch them. The noise floor is quiet but cannot quite match the noise floor of digital. On the best records it is close.

CDs sound amazing. The variation in sound quality is not as big as with vinyl but it is perhaps more to do with the recording/mastering process more than the format. The worst CDs sound worse than average vinyl. I have come across some CD copies of older albums that were just not well done. Toss the CD and stick to the vinyl version. The best CDs come close to the best vinyl but do not quite match the large, airy sound stage of vinyl. But the best CDs are remarkably good. On my system now, vinyl has no advantage over CDs when it comes to detail and resolution.

Hi Res files sound amazing. The Best of the Best Hi Res matches my Best of the Best vinyl and probably would say even a bit better because of the slightly lower noise floor. The highs are so good. Voices give me chills and the bass is as good as vinyl. The Sound stage is large and airy. The instruments and singers have a 3D feel and that amazing imaging that makes me feel like I could reach out and touch them. Not all Hi Res is great. I have heard some versions of albums in Hi Res that do not sound as good as their CD counter parts.

In summary, all three formats are great listening. Average CD is better than average Vinyl. Average Hi Res is better than average CD but the Best of the Best Vinyl and Best of the Best Hi Res are the tops.

What are your new DAC and CD?

 

What are your new DAC and CD?

I am using the Aeries Cerat Helene DAC and I still have the Ayon CD-TII Transport. I am using the Antipodes K50 with two SSD’s for streaming. It will be one year next month with the Helene and one year in January with the K50.
I used the Ayon Stealth DAC for almost 3 years, upgraded to the Ayon Kronos for a month and then decided to go for broke and try the Helene. Stayed broke…

 

I am using the Aeries Cerat Helene DAC and I still have the Ayon CD-TII Transport. I am using the Antipodes K50 with two SSD’s for streaming. It will be one year next month with the Helene and one year in January with the K50.
I used the Ayon Stealth DAC for almost 3 years, upgraded to the Ayon Kronos for a month and then decided to go for broke and try the Helene. Stayed broke…

What speakers and amp if I might ask?

 

What speakers and amp if I might ask?

Sure. First, the analog source is a Sota Nova VI Turntable with vacuum and the Eclipse/Roadrunner motor package, SME Tonearm and Soundsmith MC Cartridge. That feeds into an ARC Ref Phono Preamp and then into the ARC Ref Preamp. I have the Pass Labs X260.8 Mono amps that drive my Wilson Sasha DAWs. I have had the Sasha DAW’s since the summer of 2022. Before that I had a pair of Thiel CS6 speakers since 2005. My previous amp was the Pass Labs X350 that I used from 2002 to 2020. Now my son uses that amp- heirloom pieces. One more thing- I’m using Purist Audio Designs higher end (not highest) cabling throughout. I’m tapped out; but I listen several hours per week- and love it.

 

Sure. First, the analog source is a Sota Nova VI Turntable with vacuum and the Eclipse/Roadrunner motor package, SME Tonearm and Soundsmith MC Cartridge. That feeds into an ARC Ref Phono Preamp and then into the ARC Ref Preamp. I have the Pass Labs X260.8 Mono amps that drive my Wilson Sasha DAWs. I have had the Sasha DAW’s since the summer of 2022. Before that I had a pair of Thiel CS6 speakers since 2005. My previous amp was the Pass Labs X350 that I used from 2002 to 2020. Now my son uses that amp- heirloom pieces. One more thing- I’m using Purist Audio Designs higher end (not highest) cabling throughout. I’m tapped out; but I listen several hours per week- and love it.

Did you mean several hours per day? If not you may need an upgrade

 

Different bit rates and sampling rates. CD quality is sufficient for audio, see Shannon-Nyquist theorem. Please watch the following video for a better understanding of digital audio:

AI M, i sincerely appreciate your concern and i thank you.

I really cannot say anything about these tests. Worth mention as i learned this from particular source "warned": "all" tests blood pressure machines available to consumers not accurate. Someone might believe his reading is accurate but in reality can be different. Difficult make final judgment based on some test equipment we not sure its accuracy. Sorry!

 

Did you mean several hours per day? If not you may need an upgrade

Yes, several hours per day, about 5 days a week. Not as much in the summer because of the heat. My preamp timer shows about 1450 hours/year. That’s a 6550 every year and a quarter or so and set of 6H30’s (plus another 6550) every two-three years. I re-tube at about 3400 hours. I’d like to try some tube amps but the recurring costs- tubes every two years would be a bit steep.

Speaking of recurring costs, I replaced the resistors in my Wilson speakers after two years. That made a small difference in the sound. It’s something they recommend to change periodically but give no real timing. I did it because it started to nag me in the back of my mind, not because I had heard some level of degradation. I might wait three years next time.

 

Currently I'm using: Krell KPS 20I/L and before Krell KAV 300 CD's, Krell Phantom II and Krell A&V Standard preamps, Krell Full Power Balance 200 and KAV-500 Amp, Magnepan MG-20 speakers. All from 1998 except Phantom. I also have Transparent Ultra and Reference XL cabling and Reference power cords to all gears. I have Pro-Ject RPM 9.1 with improved power supply and VPI Signature 21 TT, Whest RDT PP. I listen almost 3 - 6 hours almost daily, sometimes including in the morning.

In 1986, I build my first analog gears (brands: Kenwood, Marantz, Yamaha, Denon, JVC, B&O) consist of: Tape Cassettes, Tuner, Turntable, Equalizer, Receiver, VHS, Amp, JBL and Bose bookshelf speaker. The total cost around $4800. Cabling: cheapest cost. Power cords: undetachable, come with unit

The sound production was accurate than these days.

 

Currently I'm using: Krell KPS 20I/L CD and before Krell KAV 300 CD, Krell Phantom II and Krell A&V Standard preamps, Krell Full Power Balance 200 and KAV-500, Magnepan MG-20 speakers. All from 1998 except Phantom. I also have Transparent Ultra and Reference XL cabling and Reference power cords to all gears. I have Pro-Ject RPM 9.1 with improved power supply and VPI Signature 21, Whest PP RDT. I listen almost 3 - 6 hours almost daily, sometimes including in the morning.

In 1986, i build my first analog gears (brands like: Kenwood, Marantz, Yamaha, Denon, JVC) consist of: Tape Cassettes, Tuner, Turntable, Equalizer, Receiver, VHS, Amp, JBL and Bose bookshelf speaker. The total cost around $4800. Cabling: cheapest cost. Power cords: undetachable, come with unit
.
The sound production was accurate than these days.

My cousin has his music going everyday almost all day long. If my stereo system is on I cannot get anything done.

 

In my home office I play music all day mostly background as I am on the phones often.
I have digital and vinyl records I plan to get tape. Then convert some vinyl or even digital to tape.
my current issue is heat from my Krell ksa200b. I’ve lowered the bias from 380mv to 250mv but sinks still hit 230 f middle sinks. I don’t have a pride of ownership in most all I own. This keeps me away from new mostly.
Ml no 26 pre and a 3.6r Maggie’s.
they alone are not perfect but do sound pretty good and good low level details
So loud is better but can be good st lower volumes.

 

My cousin has his music going everyday almost all day long. If my stereo system is on I cannot get anything done.

Best wishes Tony

 

Love roon as it finds new music I may like all the times

 

Yes, several hours per day, about 5 days a week. Not as much in the summer because of the heat. My preamp timer shows about 1450 hours/year. That’s a 6550 every year and a quarter or so and set of 6H30’s (plus another 6550) every two-three years. I re-tube at about 3400 hours. I’d like to try some tube amps but the recurring costs- tubes every two years would be a bit steep.

Speaking of recurring costs, I replaced the resistors in my Wilson speakers after two years. That made a small difference in the sound. It’s something they recommend to change periodically but give no real timing. I did it because it started to nag me in the back of my mind, not because I had heard some level of degradation. I might wait three years next time.

The tubes in the Helene DAC will last you many years with that rate of listening (probably around 10000 hours for the E280Fs and the 5AR4).