Sounds to me like Mistermike really know Hi-Fi. Question: which is more accurate representation of live music: vinyl LPs or CDs?mistermike said:I don't much like compression. The better the system, the worse it sounds. MP3/Atrak/WMA etc sounds passable on a crappy plastic PC speaker, but on a high end audio system its like processing filet mignon in a blender and drinking it through a straw. What we need is a HU that plays SACD. JMHO.
The question's a bit more complicated than it might appear on the surface. There are several criteria used to judge quality of reproduction, and then there's the quality of playback equipment to consider. Furthermore, if the goal is the most convincing reproduction of unamplified acoustic music in a 3 dimensional space, then the argument narrows. In the conventional arena of measured specifications like THD, S/N ratio, and response flatness, a digital storage medium is clearly superior. However, there is considerable controversy as to whether the specifications describe what we hear. Throughout the early history of electrically reproduced music, it was clear that some techniques sounded better than others. Engineers, particularly those at Bell Labs, began to attempt to quantify those differences, and came up with a series of measurements which described why some equipment sounded better than others. Most gear was dreadfully far from the ideal. Over the years, equipment, measurement techniques, and recording techniques improved dramatically. But at the same time, the industry became specification driven. The mantra became "It sounds better because it measures better." rather than "this sounds better, let's try to find out why."NewGTOFan said:Sounds to me like Mistermike really know Hi-Fi. Question: which is more accurate representation of live music: vinyl LPs or CDs?
The beauty of cleaning up your "front end" is that you do not need a spectacular amplifier and speakers to hear the difference. This is the principle that put the Linn Sondek on the map. Quite simply, no amp, speaker, etc. can replace information lost further back in the playback chain. When I used to sell Linn turntables, I would set up a system using the Linn table, arm, and cartridge into a mid-fi integrated amp and $600/pair bookshelf speakers. Customers could compare that to many kilobucks worth of Levinson electronics running a set of Snell A2's, all fronted by a lesser TT setup with a very expensive moving-coil cartridge or a good CD player playing the same recording. Invariably, serious, unprejudiced listeners chose the Linn system as being more musically satisfying.sxty8goats said:Hey MrMike,
I have dipped my toes into SACD and DVDA. My system is not referance quality but I do notice a spectacular improvement over CD. My player, Pioneer 45A, is not a true SACD player as it converts the data stream to pulse before analog but it still produces the most natural sounding horns, cymbles and vocals I have ever heard from my home system. DVDA is simmilarly spectacular and my ears can not tell a differance that I could blame on the technology vs the recording itself.
By the By, Great Post Mike.
I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that tube amps sound good due to a simple phase anomaly. Phase response has been well understood since the early 40's. My home system uses Quad ESL-63 electrostatic speakers whose time domain behavior looks like someone drew it with a ruler.
/nod - that certianly makes sense; thanks for the insight. I have a feeling the high end market will remain, even if small on the percentage scales. Let's hope the few places left stay above water.mistermike said:There's no economy of scale because these things are hand built in such small numbers. Dynaco and Eico were great in their day. Fabulous sound in a plain brown wrapper. Unfortunately that market has evaporated. I only hope there is enough ongoing appreciation of that sound to keep the remaining tube factories running.