The Best for the Least

[bigbob]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Baby box: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22751415

 

No idea how it relates to audio.

 

That is not surprising as I find it difficult to understand most of @GUTB talks about except that if it's "class-D" then it must be worthless, and if the entire system isn't valued at over $10,000, then it must be "unlistenable". Everything else is just white noise, to be tuned out.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

Well, I am making the assumption that the DAC is the ultimate "source" of the analog signal, which the amp will amplify, and the speakers will turn into sound.

I don't think the computer or the USB cable which transports the digital file from a hard-drive will impact in a positive manner a bad signal from the DAC. I have heard a noticeable improvement when I got the Nordost Valhalla speaker ribbons--but I would not be recommending an $8,000 speaker wire upgrade as the place to start.

 

The principle with audio reproduction that counts beyond everything else is that every aspect is working "well enough" - inserting the most brilliant speakers in the world, say, will not compensate for some dodgy implementation in the amplifier, say. Reasonable quality in everything will produce outstanding sound - but superb DAC and amplifier still won't sound right if, say, the linkage between some parts is not working as well as it should - perhaps a new acronym should be coined; GWGO - Garbage Weakness, Garbage Output.

[bigbob]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

The principle with audio reproduction that counts beyond everything else is that every aspect is working "well enough" - inserting the most brilliant speakers in the world, say, will not compensate for some dodgy implementation in the amplifier, say. Reasonable quality in everything will produce outstanding sound - superb DAC and amplifier will won't sound right if the linkage between some parts is not working as well as it should - perhaps a new acronym should be coined; GWGO - Garbage Weakness, Garbage Output.

 

I could not agree more.

For me at least, small improvements in all stops along the signal path make for a good listening experience.

 

I don't understand why tiptoes under the speakers improve the sound, nor why Sorbothane pucks under the receiver can have such an impact., I don't have a clue why XOT crossover transducers remove noise, but they do.

 

Noise gets carried in with the Music, and you don't realize it was there until it is gone. But, once gone, it is obvious when you go back from "B" to "A". Then you realize that "B" is better...

[GUTB]

These little toy DACs suck because they don’t have the space to house quality analog sections. You need high performance amplifiers (FETs, triodes, op-amps, etc) and the power supplies to run them at a high performance level. 

[Ralf11]

I always think of speakers and room tmts as the most important items.  

next, source material: mastering/recording

 

maybe DAC before amp...

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I always think of speakers and room tmts as the most important items.  

next, source material: mastering/recording

 

maybe DAC before amp...

I’m probably with you on this. 

[MetalNuts]

IMHO, the speakers are the ultimate equipment to produce the sound character I want and I do not expect a LS 3/5a to produce earth quake like bass frequency.

 

However, it does not matter how good my equipment is, whether my system sounds good (to me) depends on the source which I do not mean the CD player/ network player / dac but the discs/files.  A crappy recording can hardly be made sounding good in any reasonable system.

[STC]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I always think of speakers and room tmts as the most important items.  

next, source material: mastering/recording

 

maybe DAC before amp...

 

I would rate room acoustics to be more important than speakers. Ina an ideal room even a $500 speakers could sound really good compared to $10000 speakers in a bad room. Get your room acoustics right first and only then go for speakers upgrade. 

[GUTB]

Room accoustics isn’t something that replaces gear. A room is corrected, or it isn’t, or it’s partially corrected. A perfect room does not result in perfect performance, it only eliminates the room as a bottleneck. Crappy speakers, an inferior amp and bad DAC don’t improve because your room is good. 

 

The room is a prequisite for good sound, not an upgradeable piece of gear.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Room accoustics isn’t something that replaces gear. A room is corrected, or it isn’t, or it’s partially corrected. A perfect room does not result in perfect performance, it only eliminates the room as a bottleneck. Crappy speakers, an inferior amp and bad DAC don’t improve because your room is good. 

 

The room is a prequisite for good sound, not an upgradeable piece of gear.

 

Then why fools spend millions designing perfect concert halls? They all can play in a stadium that cater for 100000 audience and should sound the same right? 

[Spacehound]

10 hours ago, semente said:

here's a lot more money in high end audio. Soon they'll be selling wooden cable supports...

I know nothing of 'studio' stuff, but dCS, though definitely militarily involved at one time,  must have been pretty small in the area. In the UK military electronics suppliers  are a close-knit  group, which we, though a  'foreign' corporation,   were in and still are (I had some nice trips to 'GCHQ', the supposed Trump investigators  ).    But  I never heard of them in a military context.

 

I think they are 'honest' as their DACs work on a totally different principle than anyone else's and it's all their own entirely original work, not just a commercial DAC chip or an FPGA (like Chord). And they don't make nonsense claims like the Ayre guy did and others also do.

 

And despite their very high prices they don't seem to be a part of the 'luxury goods' market.

 

Schiitt?

Their name  would create a lot of market resistance in the UK. And they  put switchable tubes in their boxes so you can  make the sound inaccurate (they actually imply that in their adverts)   whenever  you want. 

It puts the price up and it's totally crazy, if I want something inaccurate I'll buy it off a market stall for a dollar or use JRiver's DSP. Not pay extra for it.

[Spacehound]

21 hours ago, firedog said:

The problem with your post is that it assumes that all engineers and scientists agree with your POV regarding audio. They don't. It isn't hard to bring deuling engineers and scientists to these arguments. 

It's only the scientific and engineering 'fringe' that disagrees. And most of the 'scientists' would not be thought of as real scientists by other scientists. 

 

The few 'engineers' that do mostly work in  the 'hifi' industry. One, who owns a small  'garden shed' DAC company calls himself the 'Chief Scientist', a title  that normally exists only in government or bad sci-fi movies.

[MetalNuts]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

I would rate room acoustics to be more important than speakers. Ina an ideal room even a $500 speakers could sound really good compared to $10000 speakers in a bad room. Get your room acoustics right first and only then go for speakers upgrade. 

 

You may be right in terms of the place you live but I am not wrong in the place I live. I am living in a place where the real property is amongst the highest on planet earth.  The option of having a reasonable space for placing hifi equipment is limited to very few persons.  Only after resolving the limited space, room acoustics will come to consideration. 

[Ralf11]

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room

 

- some of these ranking are difficult as they change once you reach a certain overall level

[STC]

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room

 

- some of these ranking are difficult as they change once you reach a certain overall level

 

You cannot be more wrong than this. Room acoustics affects Ambiophonics much lesser than other setup due to the repeated signals. 

 

A paper is in progress on this subject. 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 I’m probably with you on this. 

1) Source material. I've tried a couple of Cookie Marenco's DSD  collections.  It's quality is amazing. But I don't like any of it. There's a good reason why many of her 'artistes' are largely unknown.

2) Speakers.

Zero) I've not used room treatment and don't intend to, we like the room as it is - gadgets have to fit in.

[STC]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

 

You may be right in terms of the place you live but I am not wrong in the place I live. I am living in a place where the real property is amongst the highest on planet earth.  The option of having a reasonable space for placing hifi equipment is limited to very few persons.  Only after resolving the limited space, room acoustics will come to consideration. 

 

Not really. My room is small too. Room reverberation is tied to room volume. Tolerance level can be determined mathematically or just by listening. It is usually around 0.4 to 0.5seconds (RT60) for most small rooms. Ideally, it should be more than 1.5 seconds.

 

Use this calculator.

[MetalNuts]

24 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Not really. My room is small too. Room reverberation is tied to room volume. Tolerance level can be determined mathematically or just by listening. It is usually around 0.4 to 0.5seconds (RT60) for most small rooms. Ideally, it should be more than 1.5 seconds.

 

Use this calculator.

It does not appear to me that you are living in the place I live, so how small is your room? Before you know how small the living room we have in our place, would it be too arbitrary to disagree with me.  As I said it may be true to you that you found acoustic the most important but it is not wrong for me to consider it less important. 

 

Are you saying that you are compelling other to concur with you?  LOL!

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

You cannot be more wrong than this. Room acoustics affects Ambiophonics much lesser than other setup due to the repeated signals. 

 

A paper is in progress on this subject. 

 

you misunderstand my point

 

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room ---> you care about the sound 'effects' from time delays

 

not that room acoustics have a greater or lessor effect

[STC]

Just now, MetalNuts said:

It does not appear to me that you are living in the place I live, so how small is your room? Before you know how small the living room we have in our place, would it be too arbitrary to disagree with me.  As I said it may be true to you that you found acoustic the most important but it is not wrong for me to consider it less important. 

 

Are you saying that you are compelling other to concur with you?  LOL!

 

I am just stating the scientifically accepted values of RT60. Preference can vary but high fidelity not. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you misunderstand my point

 

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room ---> you care about the sound 'effects' from time delays

 

not that room acoustics have a greater or lessor effect

 

I was about to PM you asking whether I misunderstood your intent. Thanks for clarifying. Frankly, room acoustics mattered to me most before but not so much now as it got masked by 200 hundred impulse response of 2.2 seconds RT.

[Ralf11]

Yes, you have it solved.

 

or nearly so -- maybe nothing is ever solved

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Yes, you have it solved.

 

or nearly so -- maybe nothing is ever solved

 

That's a myth. I don't think we will ever "solve" in this hobby. Now, I am itching to buy high quality speakers for the surround ambience that are capable of micro details decay. This is audio satyriasis and cannot be cured.

[MetalNuts]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

I am just stating the scientifically accepted values of RT60. Preference can vary but high fidelity not. 

There are 2 types of persons, one being idealistic, one being practical.  I, being the latter. Being restrained and confined by the space I have, I do not consider it practical to use resources into solving an extremely difficult if not impossible  room space.  Yes, you may be right there will be improvement but I do not consider it worthwhile to use quadruple or more effort to improve just a little bit.  Further, different items (not equipment) will be added/removed placed here and there and it does not make sense to me at all.  The only acoustic that I need which I can think of is to reduce the sound leaking to my neigbour next door. 

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

There are 2 types of persons, one being idealistic, one being practical.  I, being the latter. Being restrained and confined by the space I have, I do not consider it practical to use resources into solving an extremely difficult if not impossible  room space.  Yes, you may be right there will be improvement but I do not consider it worthwhile to use quadruple or more effort to improve just a little bit.  Further, different items (not equipment) will be added/removed placed here and there and it does not make sense to me at all.  The only acoustic that I need which I can think of is to reduce the sound leaking to my neigbour next door. 

And if a small group or chamber quartet was playing   in your room you would  still 'suffer' the room's effects.

 

So what's the point?