I don't listen and sell analogs for their warmth. To get your journey, don't you think you need great analog set up to compare side by side with?
Great article on "Analogue Warmth"
- Thread starter Blizzard
- Start date
- Status
Tim didn't need to qualify. His statement that 'many people prefer digital' is correct without qualifications. The fact that most people haven't heard SOTA analog, the merits of which I tend to agree with you and which might inform their preference, is irrelevant to that statement.
Not any good anlog rig sounds better than digital. Only SOTA analog may sound better, and it is very expensive. Anything significantly below that is not interesting to me for reasons stated:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ue-Warmth-quot&p=364720&viewfull=1#post364720
I disagree with the idea that 'most better analog beats digital'.
It is still an invalid statement. Different set up and gears will have different results. What people? Mike has both SOTA analog n digital and get many visitors listen to them side by side. Not a single person prefer digital seems more valid to me. I am not converting people swap their digital to analog while they are happy with it, no point at all. I am happy for people who are satisfied with digital, please do the same and be tolerated.
Crikey - WWIII started over night. I thought us lot this side of the pond were into some debate yesterday!
I am also really surprised to read about the comments about most audiophiles preferring digital - of the polls that I have seen, that has simply not been true.
I am not too surprised to read about those audiophiles that want to be "accurate to the source" - if this is truly the intention, then I think the elephant in the room is in fact the room. These people would be better off spending their energy attempting to do something about the high levels of distortions from their speaker drivers but also how the latter interacts in a haphazard manner in the room (preferably without resorting to using too much dsp).
I have two major observations from Munich High-end 2015 - (1) those rooms using analogue sources nearly always sounded better to me. The single starkest example was the Rockport room - the MSB stack was absolutely dispatched by the Kodo The Beat TT on all the material I heard (no it was not matched exactly and no it wasn't same source material, but that is nature of shows). (2) That in the three most enjoyable rooms for me, the components no doubt would not have measured anywhere near at the level of an oppo driving a hypex into some Adam passives. These rooms were (in no order) the crazy silbatone / WE room, the Living Voice room, and the Einstein / Blumenhofer room.
Do my observations matter to any of you? Probably not because we all have different opinions. Nonetheless, it was interesting to at least find that many independent reviews of the show also placed the Living Voice room high on the list of "best." I actually found it too coloured myself but interesting regardless, people seemed to love the sound of this room so much. This was also true of the Silbatone / WE system - I think it was an eye opener for many about what we should deem as priorities in creating an *enjoyable facsimile* of what the artist would have sounded like.
I am also really surprised to read about the comments about most audiophiles preferring digital - of the polls that I have seen, that has simply not been true.
I am not too surprised to read about those audiophiles that want to be "accurate to the source" - if this is truly the intention, then I think the elephant in the room is in fact the room. These people would be better off spending their energy attempting to do something about the high levels of distortions from their speaker drivers but also how the latter interacts in a haphazard manner in the room (preferably without resorting to using too much dsp).
I have two major observations from Munich High-end 2015 - (1) those rooms using analogue sources nearly always sounded better to me. The single starkest example was the Rockport room - the MSB stack was absolutely dispatched by the Kodo The Beat TT on all the material I heard (no it was not matched exactly and no it wasn't same source material, but that is nature of shows). (2) That in the three most enjoyable rooms for me, the components no doubt would not have measured anywhere near at the level of an oppo driving a hypex into some Adam passives. These rooms were (in no order) the crazy silbatone / WE room, the Living Voice room, and the Einstein / Blumenhofer room.
Do my observations matter to any of you? Probably not because we all have different opinions. Nonetheless, it was interesting to at least find that many independent reviews of the show also placed the Living Voice room high on the list of "best." I actually found it too coloured myself but interesting regardless, people seemed to love the sound of this room so much. This was also true of the Silbatone / WE system - I think it was an eye opener for many about what we should deem as priorities in creating an *enjoyable facsimile* of what the artist would have sounded like.
You are still missing the point here, and yes, it is a valid statement without qualifications. Read again, please.
I have stated repeatedly that SOTA analog is very impressive, possibly even more impressive than top digital (which I have to listen to more before coming to a final conclusion), so I have no problem with being satisfied with analog.
For reasons stated in a link to an earlier post that I provided in the post you responded to.
Totally agree. Those who swear by equipment that measures great and is "accurate to the source" better get their room in line, because rooms tend to screw up their 'perfectly accurate' soundwaves. Otherwise their philosophy is just not credible. And yes, DSP can only correct so much. The physical distortions of soundwaves by rooms need to be prevented as much as possible by good old fashioned acoustic room treatment. If on top of that you want to apply DSP, fine, but it's no substitute.
As for speakers. you are right. Speakers that have a THD < 1 % are rare, most are at or above that. So that fact alone makes the importance of measured "accuracy" of upstream gear questionable.
High priced digital to me is one of the worst things in HiFi. 50k money for bad sound and good marketing. Next to cables it represents everything that is wrong with hifi. In an ideal scenario w.r.t gear, people would concentrate on investments in Speakers, Analog, and then digital for low price and convenience (one box, one streamer).
Not in the real world where a lot of music/performances are just not available in analog. Then it makes sense to invest in digital above analog to get the most out of the music as it is found in that medium.
As I said before, I don't think you can consider a DAC that uses a 70 cent master clock SOTA.
Bad sound? These are the type of statements that make people zealous about analog just not credible.
My digital rig (which doesn't cost $ 50K) does not sound "bad", this is ridiculous. It may not sound as good as SOTA analog, but it still sounds pretty darn good.
I don't think digital is capable of "Symphonic Distortion" That's likely what he's referring to:
We don't sell and own dac so no hard felling on it. Rather than attacking certain products, based on components inside, it is better to send your called SOTA dac to Mike to compare with. We will gladly pay all expenses, seriously. Just PM us
- Status
Similar threads
