Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

[rbbert]

Yep. And I'm not trying to say there is no room for improvement in the digital realm. What I am trying to say is that, by all objective measures, these three products are at equity. And by any reasonable judgement, they are closely comparable. The difference in value, in technology, in performance is negligible. The least of them would be the most transparent link in almost any consumer audio chain. But the difference in price is massive, absurd, punitive. Who buys this stuff? Why? They need an intervention.

Tim

I don't know; if I decided to upgrade to a pair of mono amps, I could easily see getting either the Benchmark or the Auralic...

 

[Al M.]

Then your brain will tell you your ears are believing in magic ...

I will give you an example quoted from The Spectral DMA-400 MonauralReference Amplifier
The Quest for Superior Amplification Devices
Keith O. Johnson, Director of Engineering

" In developing new and advanced amplifier topologies,
we are constantly researching available semiconductor
transistors for premium devices which will be superior
in Spectral high-speed analog applications, including
a new generation of SMT transistors. Many of
these surface mount semiconductors we could use for
new designs have quicker responses and possess
excellent amplification potential, yet their inclusion
into carefully designed Spectral circuits would not live
up to our expectations. Many were found to damage
resolution and clarity."

Do you think that any of the consumer magazines measurements will show these differences?

You can read the very interesting full text at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspectralaudio.com%2Fbulletins%2FBulletin%25200912.pdf&ei=R8_uUrugG6TQygPQlID4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEeALYppNvHoFuC-NYUs6aLRR6pmQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.d2k

Yes, good stuff in this and the previous post of yours. I don't buy the assertions by some here that all the measurements that we make reveal all we need to know. My ears tell me otherwise, and I suppose for you it's the same.

Agaain, I don't believe in unmeasurable magic. What we hear must be measurable in some way. But to proclaim, "no our measurements are fine, your ears must be at fault if you hear a difference" is just lazy pseudo-science.

 

[BlueFox]

Yes, high-quality reproduction of the music I love is my goal. That is also why I don't understand the whole hi-res craze (even if it would sound better, and perhaps it does).

Maybe it's me, but this sounds totally contradictory.

Almost all my music is available on CD only, and I am not interested in playing the same 20 hi-res files over and over again. I choose the music, I refuse to let the format choose the music for me.

I certainly would not buy music I did not like simply because it might sound really good on SACD or high-res, but if there is something I do like on a better format then I will buy it. One thing I have been doing recently is re-buying CDs that I like as they are released in the Blue Ray Audio format, ripping the files to my music server, and loving the result. For example, I have Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones on original CD, SHM SACD, and now BR Audio. Same with Celebration Day by Led Zeppelin, Modern Cool by Patricia Barber, and other CDs. They all sound better than the CD or SACD version.

 

[BlueFox]

I don't know; if I decided to upgrade to a pair of mono amps, I could easily see getting either the Benchmark or the Auralic...

I have gone from a Benchmark DAC, to a Benchmark Pre, to a Bryston BDA1, to a Bryston BDA2, to an Auralic Vega. They might all measure the same, but each change of DAC, except maybe the two Benchmarks, bought an improvement in sound. The Auralic Vega in particular is great.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, good stuff in this and the previous post of yours. I don't buy the assertions by some here that all the measurements that we make reveal all we need to know. My ears tell me otherwise, and I suppose for you it's the same.

Agaain, I don't believe in unmeasurable magic. What we hear must be measurable in some way. But to proclaim, "no our measurements are fine, your ears must be at fault if you hear a difference" is just lazy pseudo-science.

Yes, IMHO the key word for progress is correlation between measurements and sound quality.

Stereo is not a perfect system. It lives on its imperfections, that currently are most of the time very unpredictable, to become a pleasant and rewarding system. For some reason the best scholars on sound reproduction gave up their studies about stereo and embraced multichannel or other more promising systems.

 

[Al M.]

I certainly would not buy music I did not like simply because it might sound really good on SACD or high-res, but if there is something I do like on a better format then I will buy it. One thing I have been doing recently is re-buying CDs that I like as they are released in the Blue Ray Audio format, ripping the files to my music server, and loving the result. For example, I have Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones on original CD, SHM SACD, and now BR Audio. Same with Celebration Day by Led Zeppelin, Modern Cool by Patricia Barber, and other CDs. They all sound better than the CD or SACD version.

Sure, for popular titles like these this works. Most of my music is classical and classical avantgarde, and especially for the latter there is practically nothing in hi-res. But even some more popular artists are not available on hi-res either precisely for reasons that the label did not find this commercially feasible. For example, I have some of the latest (2012) and gorgeous re-masterings (partially by big names, such as Bob Ludwig) of Frank Zappa albums, released by the Zappa Family Trust, and they are released on CD only.

By the way, 'Exile On Main Street' is not a good example for hi-res since, while the music is great and intense, the recording is rather crappy to begin with (and I do have the better re-mastering by Bob Ludwig on CD). So while hi-res might help, you can't make gold out of garbage.

In the end, the quality of the recording itself will trump the format anytime. If both come together, the better of course.

 

[JackD201]

With all due respect Tom. Lamm SETs do not sound like typical SET amps be they 45s,50s, 2a3s, 300Bs, 211s, 845s or even other 6c33 and GM70 amps.

 

[Al M.]

no offense to you was meant man.

I know. I just took your post as an opportunity to state my position.

but, do you think you are the rule or the exception in audiophile land with your mature gear?

Sure, I'm the exception. I did switch CD players often (the Wadia combo was my fourth one) in the beginning of my hobby until I was sufficiently pleased with what I got.

PS, i too have seasoned stuff, modified stuff, that pleases my ears but is certainly not "state of the art". well, except for one thing, which is advanced but not ready quite yet.

When I was looking for a new DAC because I needed a digital volume control (again, long story) I was surprised that, except in bass performance, some well reviewed current DACs were badly beaten by my 20 year-old Wadia DAC (the good and trustworthy *) salesman at Goodwin's High End was less surprised). This shows again how skeptical one needs to be about hyperbole in the audiophile community about progress made. If you would believe Stereophile and Absolute Sound with their 'progress after progress after progress' reports (I mean, just extrapolate between all their articles in the last 20 years), then all new stuff would be SOOO much better. Well, nonsense.

Yet in the end the old Wadia DAC was easily bettered by my current Berkeley Alpha DAC 2, by a large margin. And I am very glad for the improvement that it's unexpectedly high resolution brings, a resolution that has caused me to completely reassess what the CD medium is capable of. So yes, there is progress in the field after all.

_______________________

*) He never pushes me for more expensive stuff, but is interested in getting me my money's worth. And he does (also with the acoustic room treatment).

 

[Al M.]

perhaps, folks want that $80K unit solely on specs...which leads into pride of ownership does it not?

I have never heard of any audiophile who buys for specs. All buy for what their ears tell them (or perhaps some buy solely based on reviews and prestige, which would be foolish -- but even then they don't buy for the specs in the reviews).

 

[microstrip]

is there not a correlation between the measurments of a lamm and the folks who like SET sound?. is there not a correlation between damping factor and the folks who like solid state sound especially in the bass?. and thats with conventional published measurments, which are only the tip of the iceberg. its seems pretty proven that folks divide into several camps, some appreciate or like less distortions, some like more, and for those two, we have measurments that correlate, as far as ELECTRONICS into a resistor load. I think your asking for measurments that correlate my taste for pepsi over coke, and trying to make preference measurable is somewhat of a waste in audio, certainly not a priority by any company that wants to make money in the field, or they would do it.....but then...everybody would copy them anyway....so where is this incentive to correlate measuemetns with our preferences, in a broad, real world way?

Tom,

You are ignoring the wide variation of sound characteristics of properly designed SETs when used with within their power range. You systematically refer to the old SETs having poor characteristics and specifications and use two "easy" specifications (high distortion and damping) as an example. As you know, we are asking for much more than that.

Besides, I have learned since long to stay away of an argument that needs Pepsi versus Coke as an example.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, the post you refer to below, is in discussion with the differnce between a$1500 device and a $80K or whatever device, both with near identical measurments. While the measurments are not exhaustive, the manufacturs present them as evidence of the pride in their work and asking price. IF they have something special, and they dont want to expose it as you say in a previous post as a reason for huge prices, due to secrets they dont want out, thats rediculous, as there is nothing in their gear that can not be reverse engineered. even the algorithims they use can be read out. perhaps, folks want that $80K unit solely on specs...which leads into pride of ownership does it not?(...)

Tom,
As I do not know which 80K device you are addressing I can not answer properly to your observation. We have many different situations in high-end price and you are mixing the arguments to make your point. Surely a few products market themselves on pride of ownership as you say. It is part of life, most audiophiles will avoid them. But trying to generalize the practice to the whole high-end is meaningless. Surely YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

I have never heard of any audiophile who buys for specs. All buy for what their ears tell them (or perhaps some buy solely based on reviews and prestige, which would be foolish -- but even then they don't buy for the specs in the reviews).

And a lot of them just buy on the advice of a good dealer or friend who knows their preferences and they can trust. You properly referred to prestige, and I think it is also an important aspect. If someone is not an expert and does not want to spend too much time getting information, buying from a company with a known record of good products and service is an assurance.

 

[Al M.]

i would hazard a guess that a great deal of audiophiles, nowadays, buy stuff based on reviews or what they heard at a fellow philes house more than listening tests at a dealer, as dealers are scarce to say the least for most of the country nowadays. thats the state of our niche hobby

Well, I guess then I got lucky having Goodwin's High End just a 40-minute drive away. They always give me components to listen to at home, and that way I have dodged some costly bad decisions that I would have made based on reviews or, even worse, opinions on audio forums. Paying full price for the equipment through this channel rather than getting second-hand stuff from the web is more than compensated for by the lack of error in the selection process (and I got some second-hand stuff from them as well). And a good warranty is worth something, too.

I do have to admit though that I bought my BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps based on reputation and reviews because there was no way of listening to them beforehand (so perhaps, in my own words, I was 'foolish' after all...). I am glad I did, it turned out far better than hoped for. But then, this is much more of a specialty product than, say, a DAC.

 

[GaryProtein]

With all due respect Tom. Lamm SETs do not sound like typical SET amps be they 45s,50s, 2a3s, 300Bs, 211s, 845s or even other 6c33 and GM70 amps.

I'm not questioning your statement. I'm using it to preface my question.


The better the components become, shouldn't they all start to sound THE SAME?

 

[JackD201]

Not if the design philosophies differ. They just get closer to what the designer is shooting for. In this instance a perceptual model. Others may be extreme attempts at "straight wire" and others purely impressionistic.

Lamm provides more test results on each model than any manufacturer I know. They even provide the test result sheets for individual units delivered and not just the published results of the golden units. Now this is not to say his products are perfect. They are however very consistent and the numbers bear that out.

Oh, and why are you shouting Doc?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not questioning your statement. I'm using it to preface my question.


The better the components become, shouldn't they all start to sound THE SAME?

Only if they are hifi.

Tim

 

[esldude]

The better the components become, shouldn't they all start to sound THE SAME?

Only if they are hifi.

Tim

That is right. Only if they are approaching higher fidelity to source. Some high end products are like an impressionist artist's vision. Just listen to some SET's which while there may be exceptions, are generally decidedly not hifi. Some can be quite beautiful, and enjoyable. The squabbles start when the joy and beauty that provides gets conflated into meaning they are superior fidelity with superior performance. When they are a superior version of some people's preference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That is right. Only if they are approaching higher fidelity to source. Some high end products are like an impressionist artist's vision. Just listen to some SET's which while there may be exceptions, are generally decidedly not hifi. Some can be quite beautiful, and enjoyable. The squabbles start when the joy and beauty that provides gets conflated into meaning they are superior fidelity with superior performance. When they are a superior version of some people's preference.

I like this guy.

Tim

 

[mep]

I like this guy.

Tim

We always tend to like people who agree with our way of thinking.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We always tend to like people who agree with our way of thinking.

The point of my post.

Tim