New decade, end of the CD?

Negoba wrote: oliverstoned wrote: My system sounds transparent AND musical. There are billion dollars ultra high end systems based on digital source and solidstate amplification only, using the best loudspeakers, which are extremely transparent and precise but unlisteneable because not musical: too cold, electronic, which is the contrary of a natural, lifelike sound. The kind of system you'll stand five minutes because there's no pleasure whereas i can listen my system whole days without fatigue.   Transparent = nothing changed from input signal to output signal (or as little as possible)   You cannot have two transparent systems with one "cold, unlistenable" and another "natural, lifelike"     Perhaps you're confusing this with separation, where you can hear individual instruments well. While a good set up of your stereo will make a difference for this, the mixing of the source will make a MUCH bigger difference. If the recording is in mono and had no EQ on the mixing end, it's going to be narrower and more muddled and your  system is only going to be able to do so much.

In true life, there are systems which are transparent (the ability to reproduce detail) but because of digital + solidstate, the harmonic's issue makes it sound cold, electronic, lifeless and not very present.
You'll get tired very quickly whereas my system is both transparent and musical (hard to define term)thanks to tube and various optimization tips.

Soundstage is linked to the "amount" and the deepness of low.
If i turn off my subwoofer, the soundstage suddenly gets very narrow whereas you get a 3D effect with the sub on.

Another unpredicatble effect of a good sub is a greater extension and smoother extreme highs which is very surprising and i snot reflected by theory once more.

Interesting technical point concerning the sub, the "illusion" of better highs it creates make it sound "better" with than without on most records.

Of course, subwoofer brings its own problems but talking about preserving the recording integrety, we may also rise the trend of over compression and even remixes (especially in "rock" and so progrock reissues)which ruins what the original albums/recordings were. Without talking about the limitations of digital Vs analog (the muddy bass on DSOTM CD versions, compared to the tight, deep bass of the original recording faithfully reproduced on a 1st pressing vinyl).

BTW, it's quite well known that CD sounds harsh in the mid highs Vs vinyl, it's less known that it's also inferior at the other end of the spectrum, good analog giving a much more powerful, quicker and tighter low than digital which sounds like a "skeleton" because it lacks flesh.

Considering that solidstate suffers from the same thin harsh sound, it's not surprising that a system with digital source and solidtate amplification only is not pleasant to listen to.

It's the reason why Hifi attracts so few people today and even partly the reason why people don't listen to music anymore: their system doesn't give pleasure so it's just a pain to listen to music.
So most people end up listening to the radio (better source than CD)in their car and that's all.

When i bought my first Jolida amp (the starting point of my journey in high end hifi), i was so astonished by the sound that i was listening for 15 hours sessions at good volume, something impossible with a non-musical system.

That is not transparency.

This is the illusion it produces. I'm only interested in the illusion, the illusion being the result.

oliverstoned wrote: This is the illusion it produces. I'm only interested in the illusion, the illusion being the result.

oliverstoned wrote: BTW, there are huge differences from one record to another, proving how neutral the system is.

^ Yes really!! How come you did not know that....jeeezzzz!!!!

^ Exaclty....now you get it.....I was begining to loose faith.....Glad ur back on board!

Negoba wrote: That is not transparency.   Furthermore, the human ear has frequency response issues at those extremes. Some system improvements ADD in order to compensate.

I think what Oliver is calling 'Transparency' (transparence) we would call 'Clarity' (clarté) - a transparent soundstage would be empty of all sound after all whereas clarity in a soundstage would allow individual sounds and instruments to be identified ( ie 'details'). similarly I think his meaning of "Neutral" and "Coloured" isn't the same as we would use, though I haven't worked out what they are yet, because whatever it is that valves and subwoofers add to a system I personally would not call "neutrality" and whatever the unmeasurable and undetectable difference between cables is, I would not call it "colouration".


Edited by Dean - September 13 2011 at 12:43