How much is too much?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I think Frantz that it depends on the individual. People hear differently, value different qualities. My ears are sensitive in the area where digital errs IMHO, eg upper midrange and upper octave brightness. Others don't hear that. God bless them (but I think if audiophiles heard more live music, like written about since the time Villchur, they would too.) Some people seem more sensitive to pitch with analog. Yes, I can hear it on the tape or LP, but I can listen through it. But I do find it interesting that everyone who comes over to my place and hears analog tapes is an instant convert even if they can't afford a R2R and accompanying tapes.
Unfortunately one can't get the whole shebang except by going to the real thing!
Yes and no, Frank. No specific distortions I can point to that are in the audible range. But it's not perfect either. Of course it has to be played through a system, and none of them are perfect, so maybe that's the limitation. What I"m sure of, at least to my ears, is that when you start with a really good digital recording and you get all the obvious obstacles out of the way -- insufficient power, passive crossovers, erring drivers...the inherent "brightness" in digital disappears, leaving clarity.
Tim
And that is exactly what my point would be; there is nothing in the actual nature of the digital process, as currently implemented in the specification for its capabilities and resolution, including that of Redbook, that SHOULD cause audible distortion ...
Frank
I am late to the party, but here are my 2 cents. In regards to the Veyron example, built a Porsche GT2 for $140K (that was a few years ago...its worth much less now) that will crush a Veyron in just about every performance category. I built my HT system for about $22K, but is outperforms systems that are quite a bit more expensive (I spent many months looking for the best deals on all my equipment). I am not a rich guy....better off than the average guy but certainly not wealthy. My approach is to always get the most bang for the buck. I will pay for quality, but I am averse to pursuing a little more performance that comes at a premium. I have all what I consider to be entry level quality equipment (Onk 3008, Emo XPA-5, Klipsch RF-7, etc.)
For example, I have 6 Chase Home Theater 18 inch subs that I bought as B stock, and the others from an audiophile who changes equipment like most change their shorts. They cost me about $3.5K but perform like they cost much much more. People exclaim "you spent $22K on HT!!?" but when they hear my system they no longer think it is all that much.
For example, I have 6 Chase Home Theater 18 inch subs that I bought as B stock, and the others from an audiophile who changes equipment like most change their shorts. They cost me about $3.5K but perform like they cost much much more. People exclaim "you spent $22K on HT!!?" but when they hear my system they no longer think it is all that much.
And so are my ears specially sensitive in that region. And I agree 100% that that is where digital replay so often does fall down, over and over again. My point is that this has nothing to do with digital as a process in itself, but because of the implementation. In other words, the DAC and associated electronics of replay are NOT doing their job properly, no matter what the specs and the manufacturers' glossies claim ...
Frank
You know it's always another excuse for digital. Been hearing one after another for 30 years.
Agree with you Myles
. To me, it would seem irrelevant if the medium-- in this case digital-- has the potential, in theory, to sound distortionless; if that same medium can never be made to perform to its so-called full potential.With analog, I always feel a greater connection to the music and always perceive a more life-like presentation than any digital that I have heard, regardless of the source. The old quote of digital-- 'perfect sound forever' really is nothing more than hyperbole given the obvious results....just IMHO
I agree, digital should not require excuses: the headache, especially, and literally at times, for listeners, is that you have be fussy, very fussy, and the manufacturers of playback gear are finding it very hard to get that message. As I have said on several occasions, if the sound is only 98% there it can sound hideous, but get that last 2% to snap into place and it's time for jaw-dropping
: massive soundstages, tonality to die for, total "life-like presentation", etc.Life is easier for analogue, tape and vinyl: pretty close will give you a magical experience, but digital will always be an also-ran if only at that same level of refinement ...
Frank
I agree, digital should not require excuses: the headache, especially, and literally at times, for listeners, is that you have be fussy, very fussy, and the manufacturers of playback gear are finding it very hard to get that message. As I have said on several occasions, if the sound is only 98% there it can sound hideous, but get that last 2% to snap into place and it's time for jaw-dropping
Life is easier for analogue, tape and vinyl: pretty close will give you a magical experience, but digital will always be an also-ran if only at that same level of refinement ...
Frank
So Frank, just so I understand.....you are saying that digital is "jaw-dropping" so long as all the planets are in alignment.
Perfection is required to get the best out of digital....and you have had this happen how many times Yep, at times it seems to be just as bad as that -- I get just as frustrated as any of you guys at times trying to work out what's needed to be done to get the sound "right". The thing is, I am able to get it to a level enough times that tells me that everything's OK with digital as a medium. It may not be a 100% perfect requirement, it may in fact need to be at least 99.5% "good", to pull a figure out of the air, but it as sure as hell has to be quite a bit more than analogue -- as a comparison, analogue 90% there will probably give most people most of the good things that people like analogue for ...So Frank, just so I understand.....you are saying that digital is "jaw-dropping" so long as all the planets are in alignment.
Frank
Back on topic:
There is no way anyone needs to spend stratospheric amounts of money on HiFi. Comparisons with cars are just as fatuous because no-one needs to spend that sort of money on cars either.
If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that beyond a certain level (and that level is not all that high) it's about status. And if we're honest about that, we'll admit that it's all about who needs to prove they have bigger todger (apologies if I'm not allowed to use that word)
There is no way anyone needs to spend stratospheric amounts of money on HiFi. Comparisons with cars are just as fatuous because no-one needs to spend that sort of money on cars either.
If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that beyond a certain level (and that level is not all that high) it's about status. And if we're honest about that, we'll admit that it's all about who needs to prove they have bigger todger (apologies if I'm not allowed to use that word)
I don't know about the rest of the mods, but my personal policy is to only moderate words I recognize. I'm assuming it's Australian for woofer.
Tim
I'm assuming it's Australian for woofer.Tim
I will reinterpret for Frank in the language of earthlings: Digital is not perfect, but it needs no excusing. These days, a cheap DAC with an op amp output stage, well done, is significantly cleaner than vinyl, and in your analog systems, it reveals distortion that your ears don't like it. It's not the fairy dust distortion Frank sorts out with Harry Potter's soldering iron. It is boring, common stuff: Amps struggling to drive speakers that are a bit too much for them in difficult transients in the higher frequencies, passive crossovers, too many noise-making parts in too many boxes, strung together by far too much noise-making wire. Accumulative noise pushed through a system by an unforgiving source = harsh upper mids/trebles.
But keep it very simple and very clean, hook even a cheap but modern, competent digital source up to more amplifier than it will ever need (my small monitors have 325 watts per channel). Now drive a pair of full-range drivers, or a very good pair of headphones, or a well-designed active speaker system and that upper-midrange glare, harshness, "too bright" etc, disappears. It's gone. No excuses. The problem is that "very simple and very clean" describes very few audiophile systems. Perhaps those stacks of boxes with their redundant power supplies, resistors, capacitors, internal wires and and external cables, feeding not quite enough power to huge speakers containing another nest of resistors, capacitors and wires was what's best for analog. It is dead wrong for digital.
Tim
But keep it very simple and very clean, hook even a cheap but modern, competent digital source up to more amplifier than it will ever need (my small monitors have 325 watts per channel). Now drive a pair of full-range drivers, or a very good pair of headphones, or a well-designed active speaker system and that upper-midrange glare, harshness, "too bright" etc, disappears. It's gone. No excuses. The problem is that "very simple and very clean" describes very few audiophile systems. Perhaps those stacks of boxes with their redundant power supplies, resistors, capacitors, internal wires and and external cables, feeding not quite enough power to huge speakers containing another nest of resistors, capacitors and wires was what's best for analog. It is dead wrong for digital.
Tim
Drat!! You managed to pick my green skin, Tim, I did try and hide it ...
But I am impressed ... in that one post you covered a great number of the issues that distinguish well sorted out systems from ones not quite so "well endowed", in a quality of reproduction sense. So my only quibble with your perspective on audio is that you don't care to believe that you can go a step further, and achieve levels of playback as indicated in my earlier post and elsewhere in threads where I participated in my time on this forum.
Frank
But I am impressed ... in that one post you covered a great number of the issues that distinguish well sorted out systems from ones not quite so "well endowed", in a quality of reproduction sense. So my only quibble with your perspective on audio is that you don't care to believe that you can go a step further, and achieve levels of playback as indicated in my earlier post and elsewhere in threads where I participated in my time on this forum.
Frank
We do agree that accumulative noise/distortion is a problem, Frank. We even seem to agree on the fundamental causes. We begin to part company regarding the cures; in fact I suspect your tweaks do more harm than good and that's why you can't seem to get "on song" to last. We reside in completely different dimensions regarding the net effect.
Tim
The net effect that I seek, that so differs from your expectations of what's possible, is the reason, is the motivation for my continuing on this quest. And the reason why the "on song" element, for me, is so ephemeral is firstly because it is hard to achieve and fragile to maintain, and secondly because I still don't properly understand the mechanisms involved.
If I chose to ease off in my pursuit, instead substituting the ordinary speakers with well regarded audiophile rated items and stopped being fussy about things, then I would end up with a very good system comparable to many others: "good" recordings would sound very impressive, reasonable ones would be quite acceptable and pleasant to listen to, and "bad" recordings would be pretty intolerable. Sound familiar?
But I'm not interested in that road -- I'm much more interested in making the playback of every recording a powerful, emotionally involving experience because that to me is something worth working towards ...
Frank
Possibly true, but instead of it being the biggest todger it may be also viewed from a collection/uniqueness point of view as well, although some would have greater value than others and I do not mean collection as hoping it gains values over the years but possibly similar factors such as who engineered the product, etc.
But then, is the person who wants the real Mona Lisa instead of a very good replica a great todger or passionate about this field.
What really fits though with your thoughts and is a bit naughty, well instead of spending say many $10k on an amp, might it be cheaper to hire Bob Carver to replicate the sound of that very expensive model using solid state as he did many years ago with the CJ in the Stereophile test.
Very naughty thought though
Would work out much cheaper if Bob Carver did do it, and still have some uniqueness to it, but to me the person doing this may also be classified a great todger
Always hoped Stereophile would do a follow-up investigation on that, if Bob was willing to go into more engineering details, or do modern measuring of both amps as it is incredible engineering by Bob, and maybe he has isolated the parameters that others still debate and try to implement in their designs.
Might raise that in a seperate post.
Cheers
Orb
So you've been saying. But, and I apologize in advance for the personal reference, you often report hearing that which is physically impossible, so your credibility is not high.
Yes. It sounds like the line you've been repeating for months. Does it sound like what I'm hearing in my daily listening? No. In fact, Frank, my experience is the opposite of what you've written here. First of all, my "bad" recordings, in the sense of the noisy, bandwidth-limited stuff recorded before the breakthroughs of the mid 1950s, are quite listenable on my systems. Their limitations are not overcome, but they're pleasant enough. And the "worst" recordings -- mostly heavily multi-tracked records from the early days of that technique or modern pop records with excessive compression and "exciting" mastering eq, actually sound best on my least resolving system: the one in the car.
Tim
Similar threads
