New decade, end of the CD?

yup.

Catcher10 wrote: Dean wrote: Gah! What we are saying has nothing to do with measurements. The data on a CD or a CDR is identical - the article you linked to said that - a copy of a copy of a copy is identical every time. There is nothing esoteric or empiric in that - it is a basic fact of life - a digital copy does not degrade at all therefore there is no difference between the three sources you "compared". I honestly do not care how much your system costs - an Audiophile system need not involve expense anyway - ironically the simpler the system, the fewer the components, the clearer the layout the more transparent it is going to be - that's a bankable fact. But if you claim that changing a component that is not in the signal path is going to have a major contribution to the sound then I'm going to be highly sceptical and very suspicious of those claims.   Let's bring a bit of perspective into this and try and bring a little realism into what these "measurements" actually mean. Jitter is a known and proven source of noise - I gave the mathematical engineering formula for that, then explained how that has been "designed-out" of every playback transport made today by the use of RAM buffering (ie cache) - jitter is measured in parts per million (ppm) and typically it is 20 parts per million on a clock generator running at many megahertz, this (if it were still in the playback signal path) would equate so something like -120dB ... that "measurement" is the equivalent to hearing a pin drop while standing next to a jet engine on full thrust. Sounds unbelievable doesn't it, but that's the reality. Now even with such an unbelievable sonic difference between the signal and the jitter-created noise engineers and designers decided to eliminate that from the system - so whatever remains, whatever it is you can hear (if it exists - and the evidence says it does not), is actually well below the threshold of hearing.   Since the above is a copy of the original....it still reads the same...it still means the same....as the original. I wonder if I read it on another computer screen if it will mean something different...I will forward it to my home computer and see tonight if it is different, than the original.   I hope so...that would be fun!!

Dean wrote: I honestly do not care how much your system costs - an Audiophile system need not involve expense anyway - ironically the simpler the system, the fewer the components, the clearer the layout the more transparent it is going to be - that's a bankable fact. But if you claim that changing a component that is not in the signal path is going to have a major contribution to the sound then I'm going to be highly sceptical and very suspicious of those claims.

I want to discuss these points cause i think you're wrong.

I've never said that a system has to be expensive to be good.
It has nothing to do with money. There are musical 1000 dollars
systems and 100000 dollars not musical systems (those based only on CD and solid state for example).


The simpler the system is, the more transparent it is?

Yes and no... a bi amplified system with solid state in the low (and
tubes in the highs) will be more transparent than the same system with only tubes in the highs because it will goes far deeper in the lows bringing as well a wider image (soundstage).

A counter-intuitive and surprising effect of adding a dedicated power amp for lows and/or a subwoofer is not only a deeper low and a bigger soundstage but also better and softer highs. I don't explain it but it
works.

All that to say that theories and measurments don't reflect the reality of Hifi.


"But if you claim that changing a component that is not in the signal path is going to have a major contribution to the sound then I'm going to be highly sceptical and very suspicious of those claims."

Modulation & HP cables are in the signal path so there are not concerned
by your remark. About power optimization, you already admit that power has a influence on sound.


Any cable, even the best, downgrade and colours the signal. The aim is to get the one which downgrades the lest for a given price, compared to ordinary cables (not shielded enough in comparison).

What about vibration-cancelling devices? There are not in the signal path but they prevent the devices from vibration. And they work as well.
When you add sand into your speakers feet, the low is tighter. Tubes are also very sensitive to vibrations, as well as many others elements.







Edited by oliverstoned - April 08 2011 at 03:36

oliverstoned wrote: Still about power optimization (something not in the signal path, but upstream). Power sections from CD decks reject a lot of power pollution to others devices of the system, that's why (real) audiophiles separate their CD from the rest using dedicated power lines. That's also the reason why we use power filters ( i even double filter each of my drive and converter and it makes a difference compared to simple filtering).

Edited by Dean - April 08 2011 at 04:26

oliverstoned wrote: If i follow your theory, one can plug an infinity of power amps on a same multiplug on the same line and there will never be no limitation ? It doesn’t stand.

Damn, you removed the silly washing machine comment - a wise decision 

Dean wrote:  "Transparent" - that means "see-through" ... i.e. it imparts no colouration on the audio signal, but by your own admission your system adds colour because of the harmonic distortion inherent in tube amp design. A tube system can never be transparent - you don't like "transparent".

Negoba-->yes the room is very important but better a good system in a bad room than the reverse



Dean

I’m not qualified enough to reply you on the power chapter.
But i’m logic enough on the « vibration » issue to prove you by
a+b that you’re wrong. My tubes are not microphonic but are
greatly enhanced by one tube damper (silicone ring) , even more
by two dampers ; BTW i use a steel triangle with points below
and counter cones (itself on a specialy selected glass/steel furniture
filled with sand, itself on ceramic cones with carbon/kevlar counter
cones). A tube amp without a steel triangle below or a set of ceramic
cones will have a muddy low and that’s why this accesory is essential
for a tight low and so good sound in general. You admit that filling my stands with sand will give a tighter low. All the other things i do about vib’cancelling on my system are based on the same principle : to lower the resonance frequency (because it’s impossible to cancel it totally) by adding weight on the devices, putting tar sheets inside and several layers of cancelling-vibes under each device. My devices are like in a steel glove to prevent as much vibes as possible.

I have seven layers of cancelling devices under my devices
(combination of several different accessories) and each layer makes
a huge improvment. Moreover, the more the system works, the more
it produces vibes that disturb many elements into the system.

All devices on the market are provided with 4 poor sorbothane feets which are vibrations traps. The aim of vib' optimization is to let the vibration flow as much as possible.

You can downgrade your device by adding a mouse pad below your feet or upgrade it by putting a set of ceramic cones under. You can negate this simple law of Physics if you like.

So saying that thare’s no need to do that because the "god engineer" has designed things as it should be is a very theorical, abstract point of view which has nothing to do with true life. Imagine a system with bi amplification, a subwoofer and how low it goes and how much vibrations it produces…all of your devices are affected by these vibrations and it downgrade a lot...that you like it or not.


Edited by oliverstoned - April 11 2011 at 09:31

oliverstoned wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote:  "Transparent" - that means "see-through" ... i.e. it imparts no colouration on the audio signal, but by your own admission your system adds colour because of the harmonic distortion inherent in tube amp design. A tube system can never be transparent - you don't like "transparent". Exactly - one person's "harshness" can be another person's "crispness". Maybe what Oliver calls harsh is closer to the original signal than the output of his amp, which contains quite some harmonic distortion added by the tubes.   Good tube is neutral and has a much better resolution in the highs compared to solidstate, so it can be qualified as transparent. Good tube sound is much closer to the real thing: it has the flesh, mateer and precense that solidstate lacks.

Erm. No it isn't. The thermionic valve has a transfer (ie. current to voltage) characteristic that looks like this:

oliverstoned wrote: Negoba-->yes the room is very important but better a good system in a bad room than the reverse Dean I’m not qualified enough to reply you on the power chapter.

Dean wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Negoba-->yes the room is very important but better a good system in a bad room than the reverse Dean I’m not qualified enough to reply you on the power chapter. I'm sure there must be some audiophile out there who is qualified to answer me, and I will happily discuss the point with him.