Audiophiles and our prejudices

[fas42]

But Frank...16 bits isn't the same as the 24 bit master, is it ? An D/A 24 bit playback of the 24 bit master to cut the shellack, then record stamper is going to be of higher sound quality, imho and experience.

If the engineer uses a really lousy 16 bit DAC to input analogue to the unit which cuts the shellac then there will be a loss. But 16 bits has 96dB signal to noise ratio, and dynamics in the treble and bass that vinyl can only have wet dreams about. The really big loss is the moment that the cutter touches the shellac. Yes, vinyl playback is so often superior to digital, but that's only because the industry still hasn't worked out how to get good digital reproduction happening all the time, every time ...

Frank

 

[MylesBAstor]

This may be of use to someone. Obviously it's a little dated. http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ttcartridge.html

While there were over 50 RIAA curves at the beginning of the stereo era, I think this chart is more applicable to the monos of the time. BTW, Allnic supplies such a chart with their phono section--though I found it of limited usefullness with the stereo records I tried. My colleague found it worked well with his older mono recordings though.There are several phono sections out there BTW (as well as some older units from that time), that have such compensation curves such as Zanden, Allnic, Wavestream Kinetics, etc. Archivists fnd these curves particularly useful.

See also this post by Larry Toy:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?647-Equalization-Curves-and-Polarity

 

[rockitman]

If the engineer uses a really lousy 16 bit DAC to input analogue to the unit which cuts the shellac then there will be a loss.

Why would an engineer ever want to do that ? This point is irrelevant

But 16 bits has 96dB signal to noise ratio, and dynamics in the treble and bass that vinyl can only have wet dreams about. The really big loss is the moment that the cutter touches the shellac.

This statement in my opinion is really meaningless in the grand scheme of things when comparing the sound of vinyl to digital. When was the last time you had or heard a well sorted turntable setup ?

I suppose this is going to be just another analog versus digital pissing match. That said, I respect your opinion even though I disagree. Cheers !

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This statement in my opinion is really meaningless in the grand scheme of things when comparing the sound of vinyl to digital. When was the last time you had or heard a well sorted turntable setup ?

I suppose this is going to be just another analog versus digital pissing match. That said, I respect your opinion even though I disagree. Cheers !

Therein lies the futility of the analog vs digital pissing match; everything is meaningless to the analog side of the match but the hearing of whatever is deemed a well-sorted turntable setup. See my sig for an alternative explanation.

I could go out today, listen to a very good set-up and come back and say I liked digital better and I'd just be told that there was something wrong with the analog rig I heard.

In lieu of facts anyone respects, let's fall back on subjectivity: I've heard a lot of analog rigs - tape and table - I understand what good analog brings to the table (no pun intended) vs. what good digital puts in the file . I hear the difference. I prefer the digital. YMMV.

Tim

 

[rockitman]

Therein lies the futility of the analog vs digital pissing match; everything is meaningless to the analog side of the match but the hearing of whatever is deemed a well-sorted turntable setup. See my sig for an alternative explanation.

I could go out today, listen to a very good set-up and come back and say I liked digital better and I'd just be told that there was something wrong with the analog rig I heard.

In lieu of facts anyone respects, let's fall back on subjectivity: I've heard a lot of analog rigs - tape and table - I understand what good analog brings to the table (no pun intended) vs. what good digital puts in the file . I hear the difference. I prefer the digital. YMMV.

Tim

It's different strokes for different folks...that's for sure. Top of the morning to you Tim. Cheers !

 

[Gregadd]

While there were over 50 RIAA curves at the beginning of the stereo era, I think this chart is more applicable to the monos of the time. BTW, Allnic supplies such a chart with their phono section--though I found it of limited usefullness with the stereo records I tried. My colleague found it worked well with his older mono recordings though.There are several phono sections out there BTW (as well as some older units from that time), that have such compensation curves such as Zanden, Allnic, Wavestream Kinetics, etc. Archivists fnd these curves particularly useful.

See also this post by Larry Toy:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?647-Equalization-Curves-and-Polarity

Myles sometimes we should like at the trees. Sometimes we should look at the forest.

I wonder what role the high end boost played in the solid state vs. tube war. Solid state having a propensity for brittle high ends and the tubes tendency to roll off the high end.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's different strokes for different folks...that's for sure. Top of the morning to you Tim. Cheers !

The correct answer. Enjoy your kit!

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

The correct answer. Enjoy your kit!

Tim

I like that, says it all!

 

[garylkoh]

Gary needs to jump in here and explain why speaker sensitivity isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be in many cases. Sensitivity measurements are normally taken at 1kHz and not across the audio band and then averaged if I heard Gary correctly. I know that my speakers are rated at 92dB which is on the high side and which means they should be able to play with low powered amps quite well. They did sound fine with 100 watt tube amps. They sound great with 200 watts+ of SS power driving them. There is no doubt in my mind that my speakers (Def Tech BP7000SC) love power. Why? I suspect that the 92dB sensitivity specification is not true across the audio band and it really dips somewhere. And remember, these speakers have a built in 1800 watt amp to drive the subwoofer built in. And, the speakers are rated for a crazy 1000 watts of input power which seems very strange for a speaker with a sensitivity of 92dB.

John Atkinson says it much better here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/measuring-loudspeakers-part-one-page-3

It's a good article to read if you start at page 1. But it doesn't help the OT because somewhere there he says that none of the measurements that he makes bears any relation to the subjective attributes of a pair of loudspeakers! I remember reading that years ago (pre-Genesis) and wondering then why would he bother measuring if that is the case. I've learned a bit more since......

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

John Atkinson says it much better here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/measuring-loudspeakers-part-one-page-3

It's a good article to read if you start at page 1. But it doesn't help the OT because somewhere there he says that none of the measurements that he makes bears any relation to the subjective attributes of a pair of loudspeakers! I remember reading that years ago (pre-Genesis) and wondering then why would he bother measuring if that is the case. I've learned a bit more since......

Impedance curves in speaker systems are all over the place, often rendering any single sensitivity number a moot point. The impedance curves of individual drivers, however, are often much more even and predictable. (Warning: I'm about to beat that horse carcass again ) Get the amps driving the drivers directly; it works better.

he says that none of the measurements that he makes bears any relation to the subjective attributes of a pair of loudspeakers!

The subjectivist's equivalent to "all audio electronics sound alike." Or maybe not. Maybe what he's actually saying is not that the measurements bear no relationship to the sound, but that they bear no relationship to his opinion of the sound; that he didn't necessarily prefer that which performed the best.

Tim

 

[Orb]

John Atkinson says it much better here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/measuring-loudspeakers-part-one-page-3

It's a good article to read if you start at page 1. But it doesn't help the OT because somewhere there he says that none of the measurements that he makes bears any relation to the subjective attributes of a pair of loudspeakers! I remember reading that years ago (pre-Genesis) and wondering then why would he bother measuring if that is the case. I've learned a bit more since......

OK found the Keith Howard article; Hi-Fi News Oct 2008 by Keith Howard; Audio Exposed Getting Real about Loudspeaker Sensitivity
Oh man how I missed that Hi-Fi News extra service for subscribers I do not know, need a reasonably good memory though if looking to find a specific article but I strongly recommend that if one has access go back and read these Investigations/Audio Exposed articles.
For those that subscribe to Hi-Fi News you can gain access to all back issues in digital form (back to Jan 2008).
http://www.hifinews.co.uk/extra/
This is incredibly useful as there are many technical and scientific related articles written for Hi-Fi News, along with Stereophile this is a great source of knowledge and experience.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Stereoeditor]

it doesn't help the OT because somewhere there he says that none of the measurements that he makes bears any relation to the subjective attributes of a pair of loudspeakers!

The subjectivist's equivalent to "all audio electronics sound alike." Or maybe not. Maybe what he's actually saying is not that the measurements bear no relationship to the sound, but that they bear no relationship to his opinion of the sound; that he didn't necessarily prefer that which performed the best.

What I wrote and what I reiterated in my talk at RMAF last weekend and in my AES lecture this weekend is that none of these measurements _considered on its own_ correlates with an aspect of perceived sound quality.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[NorthStar]

Where do Audiophiles hang out, in normal life, you know; bars, restaurants...,
and where do they get their Prejudices from?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi
I have decided to surpass Caesar in thread started … Seriously, his threads are very inquisitive and often suggest one to re-think hi or her positions. Do not lose your sleep Caesar your crown is not in jeopardy: I willl not start a new thread just revive this one :
This post was inspired by a gear Amir posted about: the DTS-20 by Danley Labs. I don’t know Tom Danley personally but had the opportunity to listen two of his designs: One was a hard Disk mechanism driven subwoofer the other was a commercial subwoofer with output to destroy most normal houses and quality to raise goosebumps on any card-carrying audiophile. Yet Danley’s name would never come to me in any discussion about great subs…
I do believe we get into a groove, an audiophile groove. One of Audiophile-cred gear and concepts. It seems to me that we reject almost automatically some gear. For example I am certain no audiophile worth his or her grain of salt would consider a Pro amp in any part of his system … Yet Crown , Peavey, QSC make amps that are superb… I have been fooled by a Crown once so I know this for a fact.
We would not use DACs from the Pro world either. We shun them. Yet, several surpass our DACs in all aspects that we care about and this for a fraction of the price… Lavry, Korg, DAD, Apogee and many others are the real deal and make superb DACs…
I would surmise that several digital DAW (Digital Audio Workstations) are superior to any Audiophile branded music server out there .. I suppose also the interfaces (both electrical and human) may not be friendly but …
Then there are speakers where my personal experience is that it’s a toss-up .. Some Pro speakers would give a run for the money to many audiophiles speakers.. I would also say that the better audiophile speakers hold their own and IMO surpass the best studio “monitor” I have heard to date. I am not in the pro world , I haven’t heard that many, so my perspective may be limited.. Still, we, audiophiles, are reluctant to accept the idea of Pro speakers superior to our own –loved and in Steinway piano black clad or Emerald green Zlaveck (a brand I ijust made-up) epoxy that requires an Helium cooled lathe to machine…
As for cables … Sorry wrong thread …
Yet there are those components that surpass audiophiles-certified ones in all aspects but price and they exist both in the consumer and Pro world and would be a very serious addition to many audiophile systems , regardless of price. Audiophiles on a budget in particular would be wise to look for these products which would elevate their systems to a different level while making the littlest dent to their finances. I do have some in mind, I will name a few and invite you to the debate: The spectacularly flexible Behringer DCX-2496 for Bass management., the well-known by audiophiles Weiss DAC-2. ATC line of superlative speakers, Genelec or Dynaudio pro speakers ( I had the BM-5 in my office for a long time) . I recently heard the Mackie HR-824 speaker and frankly believe that with a few inexpensive mods this would challenge several audiophile mini-monitor … as it is it could satisfy quite a few open-minded ones. One more thing I sincerely believe the Integra DTR40 has one of the best surround steering in Pre/pro regardless of price. Its DACs are simply astounding , so neutral they are and the sound out of the Pre output is surprisingly good, the best I have heard in any pre/pro .. it recently replaced an audiophile branded pre-Pro in a friend system… I don’t think we will look back…
Thoughts? opinions? Experiences?

 

[microstrip]

Frantz,

My audiophile knowledge is essentially empirical - I believe mainly in what I listen and complement it with findings of people that have proved me to be consistently in agreement with my beliefs and experience.

The trend towards pro equipment as a reaction against overpriced high end gear is not new for me - I have also met it several times in my country. But I have to say that my experience is the opposite of yours - the few friends who shared your view, some for believe, others by economical reasons, never got a system that could please them (and their audiophile friends ). Most of them even borrowed or bought expensive audiophile components and cables to insert in their systems assembled using pro components to improve them, and only this way could tailor them to give them some pleasure.

I have several times tried to follow the "reasonable" approach to sound reproduction, just to arrive to the conclusion that I has depriving myself of something I really enjoy in music just to be "reasonable".

BTW, my experience with pro equipment is limited to Peavey, Crown , ATC speakers and electronics, JBL and Apogee. At due time, I have compared the Apogee DAC standard or equipped with the Cello output analog stage and there was really a large difference, and yes, JBL speakers sounded very good with Audio Research tube equipment, but not as good as Wilson's V's in chamber music.

And we must remember that sound reproduction is a system task - the proof of quality is a fantastic well balanced sounding system, not a fantastic isolated piece that does not sound good because all others are poor sounding!

 

[fas42]

And we must remember that sound reproduction is a system task - the proof of quality is a fantastic well balanced sounding system, not a fantastic isolated piece that does not sound good because all others are poor sounding!

Exactly.

This is the problem, over and over again. Where pro equipment gets it right is that they are not scared of going loud, and achieving live volumes is a key step in reaching realistic sound; where they get it wrong is that they don't worry sufficiently about getting the small details right, which means that frequently you have that typically very aggressive, in your face, take no prisoners, barrage of sound that one can only take for a short period of time. Audiophiles can often go in the other direction, and achieve "precious" sound: it's "perfect" in a very narrow band of behaviour and volume, go outside of that range and it's very unconvincing, to put it mildly.

From my point of view, both approaches can and will work, but the care that's needed to get either method to fully come together is very rarely applied, and so the sorry mess of the audio industry continues ...

Frank

 

[Old Listener]

Hi
I do believe we get into a groove, an audiophile groove. One of Audiophile-cred gear and concepts. It seems to me that we reject almost automatically some gear. For example I am certain no audiophile worth his or her grain of salt would consider a Pro amp in any part of his system
…

We would not use DACs from the Pro world either.
...
Some Pro speakers would give a run for the money to many audiophiles speakers.. I would also say that the better audiophile speakers hold their own and IMO surpass the best studio “monitor” I have heard to date.
...
Yet there are those components that surpass audiophiles-certified ones in all aspects but price and they exist both in the consumer and Pro world and would be a very serious addition to many audiophile systems , regardless of price. Audiophiles on a budget in particular would be wise to look for these products which would elevate their systems to a different level while making the littlest dent to their finances.

Pro audio gear has been on my radar for some time. I bought a pro audio DAC this year and when I upgrade my office system, I'll be looking for active monitors from the pro audio world.

Bill

 

[LL21]

Frantz,

Just one point - the european audiophile community has discovered the The Bang and Olufsen Beolab 5 some years ago. It received several rave subjective and objective reviews - even Martin Colloms, the man behind the PRAT, gave it an excellent appreciation and it received the honors of going in the "The Collection" yearly supplement of the best of HifiChoice.

IMHO, the marketing problem behind the Beolab 5 marketing for audiophiles is the usually inferior quality of the Band and Olufsen source components, that have an excellent design but are connoted with average audio performance and can not complement an usd 25000 speaker.

BTW, it is interesting that your friend uses a tube preamplfier with the 5s - an old receipt for driving active speakers, such as the Meridians and ATCs was using a balanced ARC tube preamplifier. Did you listen to it in pure digital mode?

Just a last comment - in Japan Denon sold ultra expensive audiophile components designed with the same "fancy" trends, such as single output transistors, that we find in recent modern units, in the 90's!

Thanks Micro. You beat me to it...i was just trying to find the Martin Colloms review. I remember that one, and generally have a lot of respect for Martin Colloms, who has on occassion stepped out with his own convictions about 'non-traditional audiophile products' that are great (Beolabs 5) and also posting very disappointing results for some very expensive high-end audiophile products.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Exactly.

This is the problem, over and over again. Where pro equipment gets it right is that they are not scared of going loud, and achieving live volumes is a key step in reaching realistic sound; where they get it wrong is that they don't worry sufficiently about getting the small details right, which means that frequently you have that typically very aggressive, in your face, take no prisoners, barrage of sound that one can only take for a short period of time. Audiophiles can often go in the other direction, and achieve "precious" sound: it's "perfect" in a very narrow band of behaviour and volume, go outside of that range and it's very unconvincing, to put it mildly.

From my point of view, both approaches can and will work, but the care that's needed to get either method to fully come together is very rarely applied, and so the sorry mess of the audio industry continues ...

Frank

+1 Frank! I don't often step into discussions of this nature, but I think your post was spot on, and I agree that it's about the care one needs to take for it to work cohesively.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz, the limitation of pro audio speakers is that most people think of them as, and stop at, near field monitors. A good pair of active near field monitors will not only compete with "mini monitors" from the audiophile side of the fence, in most cases they will easily beat them on all fronts. The advantages of active architecture and design engineer integration make this an unfair competition. The typical audiophile, seeking synergy through trial and error, brings a rock to a rocket fight. But to compare pro audio to big audiophile systems, you have to compare apples to apples and get into midfield and mains monitors, and sometimes they're not powered, though they are designed to be used with active crossover systems and an amp for each driver. Such systems are far from inexpensive, but I'm confident that with the right choices, and the same budget, pro equipment could exceed the capabilities of TOTL audiophile systems by every objective measure. Subjective is another matter altogether. What you like is what you like.

Tim