“I believe that an audiophile system ($2000 up to $20,000 and above) may very well sound much better than my own really cheap ($500) system. But I don't think that the difference would increase my enjoyment of the music. And I am convinced that 99% of the improvement results from the amp and speakers.”
>>>
You should try to know.
Indeed, if you don’t really like music, probably “the difference would not increase my enjoyment of the music”.
“The other components have little to no effect on the sound”
>>>
So no difference from one source to another. Ridiculous statement.
“I don't think that any custom power line cables can improve the sound of a hifi system.”
>>>
Reality is something else.
“believe that some tube amps sound better than transistor amps. However, they change the signal. They add distortion, but a "good" type of distortion which creates additional "warmth". Some may prefer an absolutely linear amplification though ... so while I like the sound of tube amps, I would say that transistor amps are more accurate. »
>>>
I’ve already explained you that reality is very different.
A solid state amp is UNABLE –except some like the Cello reference II, but it’s VERY expensive- to reproduce
Highs without AUDIBLE distorsion (the difference between theory and practise one more time).
The obvious example are difficult instruments like : violin, trumpet!!!
Try to reproduce a trumpet on a transistor, it’s horrible. (it’s the same numeric vs analog)
Tube amps are FAR MORE ACCURATE AND TRANSPARENT IN THE HIGHS.
You will hear far more details. Same than for numeric vs analog.
"CDs sound harsh compared to vinyls": I think that's nonsense
>>>
That’s not a nonsense, but a report. Listening tests, you know?
The problem is that numerization AFFECTS the original signal by simplifying it, so info missing.
With analog, the signal is intact, there’s only additional noise and/or crack and pops.
MOREOVER, what you don’t know cause you have never heard, is that a big CD player on a good system reveals that most Cds have noise, even DDD ones!!!
The bandwidth is obviously not the good criteria.
Ther’s even some supersonic noise (up tuo 20khz on the CD) and it affects the signal and adds a lot of harshness. That’s WHY my Pionner burner uses a converter which:
-Recalculates missing infos, which results in a softer sound
-Cut freq up to 20khz to avoid supersonic noise!
An upgraded Nakamichi 700 ZXL tapedeck (so pure analog) has been measured going until 23 KHZ…
"The 16 bits of the CD are not enough to capture the full dynamics of an analog recording": Nonsense. Let me just clarify that 16 bits does not equal 16 steps. 16 bits equal 65,536 steps. The resulting dynamic range is much greater than that of a vinyl recording.
>>>
Completely false. 16 bits is not enough, that’s why they now turned towards 24 bits.
“The resulting dynamic range is much greater than that of a vinyl recording. In fact it is so much greater that on some CDs the sound engineers are already compressing the signal”
>>>
That’s not the reason why they compress the dynamic.
And we agree that it’s very bad:
“What happened to dynamic range? That's a question that should be asked of record labels, producers, artists, and last but not least, recording and mastering engineers. The question needs to be asked because we're the ones responsible for what's happened to our music. The music we listen to today is nothing more than noise with a beat. It's not because it isn't good music. It's because it lacks dynamic range. When music lacks dynamic range, it lacks punch, emotion, and clarity. The record industry insists on blaming Napster, MP3s, CD burners, and a host of others for the lack of CD sales. While there is some truth to their constant whining, they only have themselves to blame for the thievery that's going on among consumers. I'm not an advocate of that thievery. No one has the right to steal someone else's property. However, the music industry needs to reevaluate what it considers to be good music. The music available to the consumer today isn't musical at all. It's best described as anti-music. It's anti-music because the life is being squashed out of it through over compression during the tracking, mixing, and mastering stages. It's simply, non musical. It's no wonder that consumers don't want to pay for the music that's being produced today. It's over priced and sounds bad. Our musical heritage is being threatened by this anti-music. It's time for all of us in the music industry to wake up!
What is dynamic range anyway? Dynamic range is the difference between the softest and loudest sounds we can hear. Or, to put it another way, the difference between the softest and loudest sounds in a recording. Dynamic range is measured in decibels (dB). The typical dynamic range for a cassette recording is around 60 dB, while today's digital recordings (CDs) can reach a dynamic range of 96dB. Compare this to 120dB or more for live performances.
For years we've tried to recreate the excitement of a live performance by trying to maintain as wide a dynamic range as possible. This has always been difficult with analog recording. We had to keep the softest signals above the noise floor while keeping the loudest signals below the level of distortion. To keep the soft signals from being buried in tape hiss, we had to record with as high a level as possible. To keep our loud signals from distorting, we had to compress the signal which resulted in a restricted dynamic range. As the years went by, many improvements were made in recorder and tape technology. This, along with various types of tape noise reduction systems, helped to improve the dynamic range of our recordings, but it was still limiting.
Then, one day we awoke to a new technology. It was called "digital recording." Wow, now with a dynamic range of over 90 dB, our recordings could almost rival a live performance. Well, in theory. However, the music industry had other ideas.
Rather than use this new technology to take advantage of it's wide dynamic range, the music industry went in the opposite direction. They decided that louder is better. Suddenly, we found ourselves in a race to see whose CD was the loudest. The only way to make CDs louder was to keep compressing the signal more and more. That's where we are today. Everyone's trying to make their CD sound louder than everyone else's. The term that is used for this process is called, hot. Yes, most of today's music is recorded hot. The net result, noise with a beat.
In December, 2001, several prominent individuals in the recording industry served on a panel to judge the best engineered CD for the Grammy's. After listening to over 200 CDs, they couldn't find a single CD worthy of a Grammy based on the criteria they were given. Everything they listened to was squashed to death with heavy amounts compression. What they wound up doing was selecting the CD that had the least amount of engineering. In reality, the winner didn't win because of great engineering, he won simply because he had messed with the signal the least. On second thought, maybe that was great engineering. Anyway, what a way to win a Grammy.
Here's a quote from Roger Nichols, one of the participants on that panel. "Last month, I listened to all the CDs submitted
to NARAS for consideration in the 'Best Engineered Non-Classical' Grammy category. We listened to about 3 to 4 cuts
from the 267 albums that were submitted. Every single CD was squashed to death with no dynamic range. The Finalizers
and plug-ins were cranked to 'eleven' so that their CD would be the loudest. Not one attempted to take advantage of the
dynamic range or cleanliness of digital recording." - Roger Nichols Grammy winning engineer for Steely Dan, Beach Boys and
more. EQ Magazine January, 2002, issue. »
Another thing which show that digital doesn’t works at all.
“Compressed audio (mp3 etc) doesn't sound as good as the original": That is true. However: Depending on the system that is used for playback and the situation (home, car, walkman etc.) it can be totally acceptable”
>>>
We already agree that on a computer or an ordinary system, no audible difference.
"Musical CD players are better than cheap CD players". Yes and no. "Musical" CD players do some advanced processing and are thus changing the signal. The result may sound better ... but not because the "musical" player does a better job at extracting the audio from the CD. It cannot extract other (or more) information than any cheap player.”
>>>
Musical does not mean expensive. There are cheap CD players which are musical (I.E Nad, Rotel, Rega, Naim, Creek… ) , very expensive ones which are not at all. Price means nothing. But of course a top musical expensive player will beats a cheap musical. It’s the hierarchy.
“and are thus changing the signal”
It’s the contrary, there are more neutral and respectful of the original signal.
I’ve listen to big CD this week end: Drive Teac VRDS 20 with Brinkmann Zenith III converter.
The differences are incredible from one to another, as it’s very neutral and revealing: A bad record will sound very harsh, a good recorded one will be incredible. Unfortunately, very few are good in rock. It tells the truth. But when it’s good, it’s good.
Edited by oliverstoned
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Scientist vs. Audiophile
Topic Options
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
ok, CDs sound like crap generally. I give up!
