Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDigital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 19>
Author
Message
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 14:36
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Another point: i've noticed on my audiophile burnerthan 2X speed degrades much, compare to normal speed...


Then your burner sucks. BTW: There's no such thing as a audiophile burner. Either the burned CD is a perfect copy, or it isn't. (Read my file -> CD -> file post on the previous page).



One more time, theories don't match with reality.
My burner (pioner) makes PERFECT copies in normal speed 1X.

Btw, here's the best of the world (Denon CDR1000)



Hang on, if your burner makes perfect copies, how can the Denon one be better?


Edited by goose
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 14:47
^ did you have to destroy his illusion?

Edited by MikeEnRegalia
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 15:25
>>he, he well played Goose!

And sorry for the big pic

Denon CDr 1000 The best of market:



Yes the difference between the Pionner and the Denon is real.
Like said "What hifi" in the article up, each digital (recording) device adds it own sounds, and due to the components, alimentations, etc...make the sound aesthetic of the device and its performances of course.
So when you copy an original on such a burner, YOU DON'T DEGRADE THE PERFORMANCES like with a computer copy, or simply a high-speed copy on the good burner (but which is still better than a computer copy, which is the worst)but of course the device gives his own sound, even if its very subbtle and only perceptible on a transparent system and not a computer of course.

For the moment, the Denon is the best burner of the market, its already a few years old, but still the best.

Ther's no the smallest harshness on these good copies, no loss of dynamic, image, low, high, and the more obvious 3is the highs wich are perfectly smooth while on the computer-burned, its harsh, breaks ears &nd ruins evrything.
I would not tell that if i were not sure.
I gave a whole collection of 150 CD (mainly prog)to a non-audiophile friend...i can't stand it anymore and always get original or make good copies on my burner from a new original.
I also avoid occasion CDs cause ther's always the risk of micro-scratchs which makes the correction circuits work more...and it brings harshness, i've made the test.

All these comparisons give obvious resulst on my system; you just to hear a few seconds each CD to hear the diffrence.
Of course, i've got a big system which allows me to hear the difference. On a computer, ther's absolutely not the smallest difference...so, everything is relative.

For your information, Mike, knows that the worst of all is the CD done from a MP3 file (of course the higher the compression, the harsher the sound)or other compressed media, i'm not an expert in these kind of things!
The MP3 and others is the worst thing ever created to reproduce sound.
Cd was the poorest source, now mp3 is worst and SACD and DVD-A are still under the CD...

On another hand, in the video field, the "Blue ray disc will be better" than the DVD for image, thanks to his high storage capacity.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 15:43

oliver, I give you this: Your posts are as immune to facts as they are void of them.

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 16:15

At last I found a good source of information - a page which describes both audiophiles and skeptics. I took the liberty of highlighting remarkable passages which I find remarkable and aggree with in red.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

Audiophiles

  • There are problems in applying double-blind methods to comparison of audio devices; audiophiles assert that a relaxing environment and sufficient time, measured in days or weeks, is necessary for the discriminating ear to do its work; further, that the introduction of the switching apparatus, involving as it does either another metal connection at the switch or another level of electronic processing with solid state switches, obscures the differences between the two signal sources being tested.
  • While tubed electronics are less linear than solid state at high signal levels, they are claimed to be significantly more so at lower (sub-one-watt) levels; and it is argued that most musical signals spend most time at these levels. Paraphrased, "The first watt is the most important."
  • Total harmonic distortion has been proved by scientific testing to correlate only poorly with perceived sound quality; the type of distortion is very significant. For instance, distortion by even harmonics has been shown to be less objectionable than by odd harmonics.
  • In general, proponents of "high-tech" solutions (such as the earliest CDs) dismiss complaints of audiophiles on the grounds of the new systems' ideal behavior, rather than real world behavior using real world components. Often this is followed by the introduction of newer, improved components which are sold as lacking the problems of the prior generation, which had been described as "audibly perfect" at the time. For instance:
    • In defense of their preference for analogue over digital formats, audiophiles point out that the process of converting a bit-stream to an analogue waveform requires heavy filtering to remove spurious high-frequency information, and that it should be expected that such filtering should involve some signal degradation and a large amount of phase shift in the passband. They point out that commonly used consumer grade digital to analog converters (DACs) exhibit very poor linearity at low levels. Both problems, at first dismissed, were then addressed by such solutions as digital filtering, oversampling, and use of 20 or more bit DACs. The introduction of the new higher-bandwidth "high-resolution" music formats was a tacit admission of the reality of this issue. Musician Neil Young, for example, was a harsh critic of the sound of the original CD format, but has approved of the sound of the Super Audio CD (SACD) with its greater "safety margin" between its ideal behavior and the requirements set by the limits of human hearing.
    • Audiophiles were insistent on the sound degradation introduced by large levels of negative feedback in amplifiers, long before the universal acceptance of the fact that, while this technique was indeed beneficial to amplifier stability and test results using steady-state waveforms, it was inherently problematic for constantly changing waveforms as in real music, and resulted in amplifiers that tested well and sounded bad.
    • Audiophiles were insistent on the improvement in sound quality they heard with higher quality capacitors (such as tantalum) in place of or bypassing large electrolytics or paper capacitors in the signal path, long before the universal acceptance of the fact that such capacitors, involving as they do significant inductance due to their spiral-wound construction, do interfere with passage of the highest audio frequencies.
    • Audiophiles were experimenting with improved power supplies for CD players in order to block them as a path for the mechanical section of the CD drive and the digital section around the DAC to affect the audio section. In particular, the concern that voltage fluctuations in the power supply from the load of the motor would affect the internal digital clock of the digital section, and that such digital clock "jitter" would cause audible distortion was explored by audiophiles long before it was found to be valid by manufacturers.
  • Although clearly audible levels of very objectionable distortion were demonstrated early in the digital audio era by simply running a signal source through an analog to digital converter and the result through a digital to analog converter, and electronically subtracting that result from the source, this demonstration was ignored by the digital audio proponents, much as the inability to demonstrate differences by double blind testing was ignored by the audiophile camp.
  • Audiophiles were experimenting with room acoustics long before component manufacturers began to consider them a factor.
  • Audiophiles noted the differences in response speed between various speaker drivers used in a single speaker system, and began experimenting with fewer drivers, stepped speaker boxes, and so on.
  • Many vendors or retailers offer free trials, or money-back guarantees if their products are unsatisfactory, and they remain in business.
  • Despite a lack of formal education, experienced "listeners" can be relied upon for objective advice on how equipment sounds, and whether its worth the price.

Skeptics

  • There are reports of Double-blind tests which fail to support audiophile claims that they can easily perceive significant differences between very similar musical components.[1]
  • Listening tests are notoriously unreliable; for instance, Edison showed that entire theater audiences were unable to distinguish between the sound of an orchestra or a playback by his recording system, which today would be regarded as ludicrously poor in quality. Similarly, early CDs and CD players were accepted as having fantastically great sound quality; those exact same systems today are regarded as fatally flawed, while analog systems from that period have not similarly fallen in public assessment of quality.
  • Similarly, repeatability is poor for evaluation of components between various listeners, or even the same listener under different circumstances; this contrasts with the superficially similarly esoteric oenophile world, where repeatability of blind tests is surprisingly good.
  • Measured audio distortion is immensely higher in electromechanical devices such as speakers than in purely electronic components such as CD players and amplifiers, making it hard to believe that subtle differences in the latter can have an appreciable effect on music quality.
  • Similarly, acoustic behavior of the listening room, and the interaction between speakers and the room acoustics, is immensely more variable than variation between electronic components; in an electromechanical system such as a speaker, such interaction is reflected in the interaction between speakers and the amplifiers which drive them, so that the entire difference in sound quality between amplifiers is often postulated as merely either the ability to control the behavior of "difficult" speakers well, or else just a lucky combination of speaker, amplifier, and room which works well together.
  • Minute differences in loudness have been demonstrated to be perceived as differences in sound quality rather than loudness, with the slightly louder system sounding better; so that tremendous care must be taken in matching sound level, using sensitive sound pressure meters, when comparing systems if the results are to have any validity at all; this is usually not done.
  • Audiophiles often totally disdain all attempts to categorize differences in sound using instrumental measurements, despite the work of such combination audiophile-engineers as Bob Carver, who have repeatedly shown that by tailoring the transfer function of any system with a relatively simple sound-shaping network, they can make it sound indistinguishable from any other system, as requested.[2][3]
  • Audiophiles often prefer the use of vacuum tube rather than more modern solid state electronics, despite their substantially-higher measured total harmonic distortion. When this is pointed out, they often claim that the distortion is "warmer" or "more musical" than that of a transistor amplifier. Interestingly, the relatively soft distortion characteristics of tube amplifiers are used regularly in high-end guitar amplifiers; in this case the loss of fidelity is intentional and even characteristic of the electric guitar sound, and transistor-based amplifiers are often frowned on for guitar use due to the harsh clipping artifacts created by a distorted transistor amp.
  • Audiophiles regularly make strong claims for the superior quality of music reproduction from (vinyl) records on a turntable, compared to modern digital alternatives (which, among other things, are free from "click and pop" problems and background noise), even though compact disc audio in particular is designed to have a wider dynamic range than vinyl.
  • Audiophile equipment designers can obsess over seemingly irrelevant details; for instance, the almost universal requirement to reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kilohertz, even though some kinds of equipment will not reproduce anything higher than 15 or 16 kilohertz (for example, FM radio and vinyl records).
  • Some audiophile practices seem driven by fashion, such the late-Eighties vogue for marking the edges of CDs with a green felt marker, or the practice of suspending cables above the floor on small racks. Skeptics argue that the laws of physics are not subject to fashion.
  • The prices of audiophile products can seem remarkably high, even if one believes in the benefit conferred. It is quite possible to spend over a hundred thousand dollars for speakers, and tens of thousands for amplifiers and CD players, or over a thousand dollars for a power cable.[4] [5]
  • Vendors of audiophile products regularly make fanciful and frankly unscientific claims for the results produced. At one point a company called Tice Audio sold what appeared to be an ordinary clock radio which, it was claimed, would improve the quality of a playback system if plugged into the same electrical circuit, by causing some mystical change in "electron energy".
    Vendors such as Shun Mook market a variety of disks and clamps which, when attached to audio components, are claimed to improve sonic performance.
  • In particular, vendors of audio cables have been prone to claims, and to pricing, which strain credulity. There have been audio cables which are filled with water, which glow in the dark, and which come with a separate AC cord which must be plugged in to power the workings of the cable. Those versed in the physics of electrical conductivity often find the prices paid for cables to be laughably high, and at best consider them a form of jewelry.
  • Some audiophile claims, while superficially based on accepted physical principles, apply them to circumstances where they are not relevant; for instance the skin effect which relates the efficiency of cables to the frequency transmitted is often referenced with regard to audio frequencies, where it is not significant.
  • Many (not all) of the most outspoken audiophile insiders, including reviewers, columnists and pundits lack engineering training and objective credentials. This gives rise to a credibility problem and most will fully admit a lack of understanding as to the technical merits of what they are analyzing, but nevertheless praise a product's innovation and performance. (does this remind you of someone?)

Overall the audiophile world is looked upon by skeptics as being a hotbed of gullibility and fraud, its marketing engine driven primarily by either a constant desire for oneupsmanship or a more benign desire to tinker with equipment; in particular, the tinkering drive is fed by wild claims for minor parts of the system such as cables. In turn, skeptics are often harshly dismissed by dedicated audiophiles as "meter men", people who simply refuse to recognize what the audiophiles consider obvious. The debate is rather heated in certain quarters, and even James Randi chimed in on the issue in 2005.



Edited by MikeEnRegalia
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 16:33
oliver, goose: could you edit that big picture of the Denon CD-R out of your posts? The longer text passages in all of the posts on this page would be much easier to read then.
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2005 at 17:57
Done on mine
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 03:37
A funny match...

Drive CEC TL-01



Converter Goldmund Mimesis 12++






VERSUS

that thing:

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 03:39


Back to Top
cobb View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 10 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 04:14
Oliver- get rid of that picture of the denon cdr1000 so I can read the posts without having to h/scroll
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 04:16
How can i do?
Back to Top
cobb View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 10 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 04:18
Just go back to the post that contains the image and click the edit button, then remove the link URL information from the post and update the post
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 04:29
Ok, done. Thanks.
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 08:13
     There are reports of Double-blind tests which fail to support audiophile claims that they can easily perceive significant differences between very similar musical components.[1]
     Listening tests are notoriously unreliable; for instance, Edison showed that entire theater audiences were unable to distinguish between the sound of an orchestra or a playback by his recording system, which today would be regarded as ludicrously poor in quality.
     
     Maybe Edison had maybe great system.And no, it’s not because it’s old that its less good.
     We have regress in sound quality with the arrival of the CD, then worst the MP3.
     
      Similarly, early CDs and CD players were accepted as having fantastically great sound quality; those exact same systems today are regarded as fatally flawed, while analog systems from that period have not similarly fallen in public assessment of quality.
>>>>
Accepted by who? People has been fooled by marketers who told them that cd was perfect and now they tell it’s not that perfect, in order to sell us their SACD which doesn’t works yet. My hifi guru, which is in hifi from 35 years, bought a CD player only a few years ago, when quality became acceptable. He already had great analog sources which smoked first cd players-and still smoke current ones-He has currently one of the best-if not the best- digital system of the planet: Mark Levinson transport+ converter. It’s amazing, but still less good than a high end turntable, which is 4 times less expensive.




     Similarly, repeatability is poor for evaluation of components between various listeners, or even the same listener under different circumstances; this contrasts with the superficially similarly esoteric oenophile world, where repeatability of blind tests is surprisingly good.


     Measured audio distortion is immensely higher in electromechanical devices such as speakers than in purely electronic components such as CD players and amplifiers, making it hard to believe that subtle differences in the latter can have an appreciable effect on music quality.

One more time, the measures tells nothing about THE PERFORMANCES and the MUSICALITY.
These theorical statements are completely uninteresting.
     Similarly, acoustic behavior of the listening room, and the interaction between speakers and the room acoustics, is immensely more variable than variation between electronic components; in an electromechanical system such as a speaker, such interaction is reflected in the interaction between speakers and the amplifiers which drive them, so that the entire difference in sound quality between amplifiers is often postulated as merely either the ability to control the behavior of "difficult" speakers well, or else just a lucky combination of speaker, amplifier, and room which works well together.
>>>>
Here it’s quite confuse, as there are two things:
-The importance of room acoustic which is often exaggerated.
Of course, you can have some work in your room and sometimes big problem if the floor is too thin, etc… you can improve your result by improving the room, etc.. but a great system will work great in an “average” room.
-The second idea evoques a kind of synergia between the differents elements… I don’t see well what the author wanted to express.


     Minute differences in loudness have been demonstrated to be perceived as differences in sound quality rather than loudness, with the slightly louder system sounding better; so that tremendous care must be taken in matching sound level, using sensitive sound pressure meters, when comparing systems if the results are to have any validity at all; this is usually not done.
     Audiophiles often totally disdain all attempts to categorize differences in sound using instrumental measurements, despite the work of such combination audiophile-engineers as Bob Carver, who have repeatedly shown that by tailoring the transfer function of any system with a relatively simple sound-shaping network, they can make it sound indistinguishable from any other system, as requested.[2][3]
     Audiophiles often prefer the use of vacuum tube rather than more modern solid state electronics, despite their substantially-higher measured total harmonic distortion. When this is pointed out, they often claim that the distortion is "warmer" or "more musical" than that of a transistor amplifier. Interestingly, the relatively soft distortion characteristics of tube amplifiers are used regularly in high-end guitar amplifiers; in this case the loss of fidelity is intentional and even characteristic of the electric guitar sound, and transistor-based amplifiers are often frowned on for guitar use due to the harsh clipping artifacts created by a distorted transistor amp.
>>>
We have already discussed the tube issue. Still the pb of pair and unpair harmonics. The ones breaks the ears (cheese rape in the highs with transistor) while the others are very musical.
     Audiophiles regularly make strong claims for the superior quality of music reproduction from (vinyl) records on a turntable, compared to modern digital alternatives (which, among other things, are free from "click and pop" problems and background noise), even though compact disc audio in particular is designed to have a wider dynamic range than vinyl.
>>>
First, the classic 16bits CD is quite limited in freq. On another hand, it adds “supersonic noise” from 20khz to 40khz which is something not in the music, which is responsible of ear’s fatigue and brightness (in the pejorative sense of the word).
A good tuner or a good tape deck goes at 18khz, which is enough in the highs, but the more important, it does it well!!! Whereas the CD superficially goes far, but gets your ears tired very far.

That’s why you have to get a very high end cd player in order to have an acceptable quality in CD playing, which is actually closer to analog sound.


     Audiophile equipment designers can obsess over seemingly irrelevant details; for instance, the almost universal requirement to reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kilohertz, even though some kinds of equipment will not reproduce anything higher than 15 or 16 kilohertz (for example, FM radio and vinyl records).
>>>I’ve got a friend which owns a Nakamichi 700zxl mofified by MR Nakamichi and it has been tested to go at 30khz!! Btw, it’s an incredible source.
High end turntables go at 30khz too.

     Some audiophile practices seem driven by fashion, such the late-Eighties vogue for marking the edges of CDs with a green felt marker, or the practice of suspending cables above the floor on small racks. Skeptics argue that the laws of physics are not subject to fashion .
>>>>
The tip of marking the edge of cd is a little ridiculous, but gives subtle (so real) results and has a serious technical reason.
     The prices of audiophile products can seem remarkably high, even if one believes in the benefit conferred. It is quite possible to spend over a hundred thousand dollars for speakers, and tens of thousands for amplifiers and CD players, or over a thousand dollars for a power cable.
>>>>
It’s like everything, and it’s like a drug, cause when you start, it’s so good that you can’t stop.
Most people spend 15000€ in their car and are shocked when I say I spend the same for my system.
I prefer music over car!
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 08:20


A friend of mine owns the Nakamichi700zxl upgraded by Mr Nakamichi(one of the 2 best tape decks ever)and it has been tested in lab to go to 30khz!!!



Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 08:30
People have preconceived ideas about hifi, it's like for everything...

Here they are:

-You have to have a special room with a special acoustic treatment to enjoy a great system...False!!

-Numeric works better than analog.False!!

-Transistor works better than tubes.False!!

-Tubes amps are fragile and get worn quickly and so the performance decrease...False!!

-Expensive cables are "ripped off", placebos (False!!some are but others are not, depending on the brands mainly)

-Distorsion rate and others technical spec are a good criteria to judge a device...False!! only results matter!

-Tuners are outdated cause "limited" at 16 khz...
False!!one of the very best sources ever are:

-Tube tuner Marantz 10 b (1962-1968)the most musical tuner ever. A wonder.
-Goldmund Mimesis IV (90's tuner, the more performant, an amazing source which explodes all CD players on hifi and musical criterias)
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 08:32
This little wonder (Goldmund mimesis IV)
explodes virtually all sources, especially when you listen to a direct concert:

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 10:15


Marantz 10b (1962-1968), the more musical and the best tuner ever. It costed so much in research that it almost ruined the famous brand.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 10:24
^ maybe the audiophiles call those tuners musical simply because they don't have the higher frequencies ... maybe the CD sounds "harsh" to them simply because it contains audio >16khz.
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2005 at 10:34
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ maybe the audiophiles call those tuners musical simply because they don't have the higher frequencies ... maybe the CD sounds "harsh" to them simply because it contains audio >16khz.


No, harshness is inherent to digital, some top analog sources go further on MESURES than top cds, and are not harsh at all. 'some top turntables are measured at 30khz!!)
Th supersonic noise of digital from 20khz to 40 khz is not in the music,it's a numeric artifact.
But when you upgrade drive/converter (you don't believe in drive, but at least converter) you loose this harsness linked to this supersonic noise which is lowered.
But anyway, the best CD player sounds flat,lakes of dynamic, compared to a high end turntable.
For example, the big audiophile i know which owns the Mark levinson cd ensemble has also a turntable 4 times less expensive his CD (the CD costs about 50000 dollars) and it explodes the CD! (even if the cd is fantastic)...
Put the tapedeck up besides the Mark Levinson: the Levinson goes further on hifi criterias (bandwith, image) but is less musical, and fatigue the ears faster than the tapedeck...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.201 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.