Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[vl]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I agree with your conclusions, as far as they go with prevailing commercial media.  I have dabbled and experimented with many of those same alternatives.  

 

If concert hall sound is your reference standard, and I quite agree it should be, then the next step beyond what you have considered is discretely recorded Mch sound.  To me, it is, without question, the closest approach in reproduction yet to concert hall sound, and not by just a little.  Equipment choices are always important, but breaking the sonic, spatial barriers imposed by 2-channel stereo are even more important if you wish to get closer to concert hall sound.

 

I agree.

[TubeLover]

6 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I agree with your conclusions, as far as they go with prevailing commercial media.  I have dabbled and experimented with many of those same alternatives.  

 

If concert hall sound is your reference standard, and I quite agree it should be, then the next step beyond what you have considered is discretely recorded Mch sound.  To me, it is, without question, the closest approach in reproduction yet to concert hall sound, and not by just a little.  Equipment choices are always important, but breaking the sonic, spatial barriers imposed by 2-channel stereo are even more important if you wish to get closer to concert hall sound.

I don't disagree, Fitz, but quality multi channel sound is simply beyond the means of most mere mortals. Getting to a point where you have high quality two channel sound most often pushes the limits of audiophiles. A good friend was considering seriously making  amove to multi-channel, and to keep the sound quality at the level of his current two channel system, the cost was that of a fairly nice car! And, also importantly, there virtually no DACs that even offer multi channel (I know of exactly one).

 

JC

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 hours ago, TubeLover said:

I don't disagree, Fitz, but quality multi channel sound is simply beyond the means of most mere mortals. Getting to a point where you have high quality two channel sound most often pushes the limits of audiophiles. A good friend was considering seriously making  amove to multi-channel, and to keep the sound quality at the level of his current two channel system, the cost was that of a fairly nice car! And, also importantly, there virtually no DACs that even offer multi channel (I know of exactly one).

 

JC

I had a very high level, carefully selected stereo system in the  $60k MSRP range before deciding to add Mch HT to it, but planning to keep stereo playback from CD or LP untouched.  The front channels were used for both stereo and Mch via HT bypass in my preamp.  The brands in my system were familiar - Krell, Levinson, Audio Research, Theta Digital, Martin Logan, Cardas, etc.  I was a typical high end guy, carefully tutored in that approach to sound by the magazines, dealers and many audiophile friends over many years.

 

As I selected the new added components for Mch, I got a chance to audition many new components in my home relative to that excellent sounding stereo.  I was not planning to spend on Mch like I had spent on my stereo.  After all, the Mch stuff would be mainly used with video, I thought.  So, audio quality did not have to be as high or expensive.

 

it quickly became clear to me that some much cheaper components really did not sound all that different from the exotic stuff in my stereo.  Smaller Martin Logan speakers for center and surrounds sounded virtually identical to the big ones I already had, except in the deep bass.  A new sub in my Mch system would take care of that.  Parasound A23 amps costing under $1k were virtually indistinguishable from my $22k Krell Class A monoblocks, again except for the deep bass.  Some good, low capacitance XLR cables costing under $300 for 10 meters actually sounded better than my 2-3 meter Cardas cables costing way, way more.  Etc.  Those discoveries were quite an eye opener.

 

I spent about $10k for the Mch upgrade, got it all together and working.  It sounded great on videos.  I also discovered in stereo that my $1,600 Integra prepro sourced from a $169 Oppo player actually sounded somewhat better than my old CD front end when Audyssey EQ in the Integra was calibrated and turned on.

 

So, then, what about Mch for music?  I bought my first Mch SACDs to try.  One was of a live Philadelphia Orchestra concert I had attended a year or so before.  It took about 30 seconds to realize that this was a substantial leap forward in home reproduction.  I was hooked.  My life in audio was changed much more than it had ever been before, and forever.  That was 11 years ago.  I have not bought a stereo CD in that time.

 

I sold the exotic stereo components at good prices, recouping just about all of my investment in Mch.  They simply did not provide near the level of listening satisfaction that my now cheaper Mch system did. Lesson learned: high end orthodoxy expensively built around the stereo paradigm is myopic and does not provide the highest levels of sound reproduction if live concert hall music is your reference standard!  The magazines, blogs, forums, etc. don’t know or don’t want to tell you this except for Kal Rubinson in Stereophile.  Even dealers are clueless about it and often have no facilities to demo it, even if they support HT.

 

Today, I am totally into computer audio via a MultiMedia PC.  I have over 4,000 albums, mainly Mch classical, on my 52TB NAS, plus hundreds of concert, opera, and ballet BDs in my JRiver library.  I use an Exasound E28 DAC via USB, and it directly feeds my amps.  The prepro, separate disc player and TV cable box were all eliminated from my system.  The excellent Dirac Live EQ in the PC provides major sonic improvements that are obvious and indispensable.

 

I have never been happier in many decades as an audiophile.  It is actually beyond my wildest dreams of even 11 years ago before I first heard hirez, discretely recorded Mch sound.  I never though sound in the home could approach this level.

 

Meanwhile, on your other point, yes Mch DACs are scarce, but I am quite happy with mine. Kal’s blog has all the details.  Mch recordings are actually quite abundant, and they keep coming, although, of course, stereo releases far, far outnumber them.  I cannot keep up with and I have not yet listened to all the Mch music on my NAS.

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I sold the exotic stereo components at good prices, recouping just about all of my investment in Mch.  They simply did not provide near the level of listening satisfaction that my now cheaper Mch system did. Lesson learned: high end orthodoxy expensively built around the stereo paradigm is myopic and does not provide the highest levels of sound reproduction if live concert hall music is your reference standard!  The magazines, blogs, forums, etc. don’t know or don’t want to tell you this except for Kal Rubinson in Stereophile.  Even dealers are clueless about it and often have no facilities to demo it, even if they support HT.

 

 

 

Sorry to do this, but I just wish to set the record straight here. High quality Mch is Yet Another Method for triggering the brain into accepting a full blown illusion of a live music event - it's not the only means of doing such. Stereo when operating with full integrity is an alternative approach, and has the advantage of a massive repertoire of recordings to call on - the world's your oyster!

 

"High end orthodoxy expensively built" is not a full answer for getting that integrity - at the moment only individuals sufficiently motivated, and knowledgeable to do the remaining steps achieve this level. This needs to change ... and, will eventually happen ...

[bachish]

On 7/8/2018 at 11:41 AM, joelha said:

If, on the other hand, you want to tell me you have a digital system which matches or exceeds the enjoyment factor you have had from reel to reel tape, please chime in.

Other comments or questions are welcome as well. I’m very new to this reel to reel part of the hobby and, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned above, won’t abandon the digital part of my system. But it’s a heck of a lot harder to go back to now.

 

Joel

 

Joel, I still remember the first time I heard a CD in 1985 while an undergrad music student. The theory prof played us a CD of the opening of the Rite of Spring. The entire class was floored. It was like a veil had been lifted from the recording. It was like you could reach out and touch the bassoon and bass clarinet. I could hear the clicking of the keys on the bass clarinet like it was in the same room with us. 

 

That is what digital is - transparent. Digital doesn't have a 'sound' per se.  It is the Simon Cowell of audio - brutally honest. It won't put the best spin on a story or flatter a recording. You have to get it right from the get go.

 

But what digital excels at is high fidelity. What I mean is you can take the voltage coming from an analog mixing counsel or mic pre and put it through high end ADDA conversion at it will sound, for all intents and purposes, identical to the sound from the counsel.  That is high fidelity ('faithfulness' to the original signal) and it is not as true for reel to reel tape. 

 

I have heard reel to reel analog tape and it does sound beautiful, no doubt, but at a price.  You don't get something for nothing in this universe. Analog tape still has that slight veil, IMO, that sounds less like 'you are there' in the way I described the Rite of Spring recording. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joelha]

On 9/9/2018 at 9:39 PM, bachish said:

 

Joel, I still remember the first time I heard a CD in 1985 while an undergrad music student. The theory prof played us a CD of the opening of the Rite of Spring. The entire class was floored. It was like a veil had been lifted from the recording. It was like you could reach out and touch the bassoon and bass clarinet. I could hear the clicking of the keys on the bass clarinet like it was in the same room with us. 

 

That is what digital is - transparent. Digital doesn't have a 'sound' per se.  It is the Simon Cowell of audio - brutally honest. It won't put the best spin on a story or flatter a recording. You have to get it right from the get go.

 

But what digital excels at is high fidelity. What I mean is you can take the voltage coming from an analog mixing counsel or mic pre and put it through high end ADDA conversion at it will sound, for all intents and purposes, identical to the sound from the counsel.  That is high fidelity ('faithfulness' to the original signal) and it is not as true for reel to reel tape. 

 

I have heard reel to reel analog tape and it does sound beautiful, no doubt, but at a price.  You don't get something for nothing in this universe. Analog tape still has that slight veil, IMO, that sounds less like 'you are there' in the way I described the Rite of Spring recording. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bachish,

 

Thanks for your message.

 

The reason I don't agree, and you're communicating with someone who has made a serious investment in digital, is even between different high-end dac's, usb cables and yes, even ethernet cables, the sound varies. An SLC SSD operating system drive sounds different than an MLC SSD operating system drive. There can't be a specific digital sound because there are too many variables from studio recording to output on the user's speakers.

 

Having said that, in general, and this is a purely subjective finding, what tends to sound revealing about digital to me, for lack of a better way of putting it, suffers from a lack of smoothness and richness. 

 

I'm not for one minute going to say that reel to reel is more accurate, whatever that means. Because I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

 

I'll just say from a convenience and cost standpoint, I wish digital sounded better to me.

 

Reel to reel tape I could listen to critically for hours on end. Digital? Not so much.

 

However, I'm not giving up the chase.

 

Reel to reel is too expensive and inconvenient for me to rely on as a primary means of playback.

 

I believe that someday, with ever improving filters and computer technology, digital will be able to replicate any playback means available.

 

Thanks again.

 

Joel

 

 

[tmtomh]

6 minutes ago, joelha said:

An SLC SSD operating system drive sounds different than an MLC SSD operating system drive. 

 

This is complete and utter nonsense.

[joelha]

If you haven't listened to it, then you're only theorizing.

 

If you've heard it, then I'll at least respect your opinion.

 

However, I'm far from along in my experience.

 

Joel

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, joelha said:

If you haven't listened to it, then you're only theorizing.

 

If you've heard it, then I'll at least respect your opinion.

 

However, I'm far from along in my experience.

 

Joel

 

Even the power supply for the OS SSD can  make an audible difference.

Which type injects the most noise back into the power supply ?

[joelha]

You tell me, sandyk.

 

I'm willing to learn.

 

Joel

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, joelha said:

You tell me, sandyk.

 

I'm willing to learn.

 

Joel

Joel

 Quite a few members have now verified that improving the power to the OS and Music storage SSDs results in a small but worthwhile audible improvement. This can be done by fitting  a linear PSU, or as I and several other members have done, by regulating the internal +12V supply down to a much cleaner +5V supply, which markedly helps to reduce interaction between the SSDs and other areas via the main PSU. This of course depends on whether you have adequate room inside the case to fit a small Voltage Regulator PCB, perhaps to the bottom of the case.

The usual suspects will of course insist that such reports are only anecdotal.

 

Alex

[bachish]

37 minutes ago, joelha said:

Bachish,

 

Thanks for your message.

 

The reason I don't agree, and you're communicating with someone who has made a serious investment in digital, is even between different high-end dac's, usb cables and yes, even ethernet cables, the sound varies. An SLC SSD operating system drive sounds different than an MLC SSD operating system drive. There can't be a specific digital sound because there are too many variables from studio recording to output on the user's speakers.

 

Having said that, in general, and this is a purely subjective finding, what tends to sound revealing about digital to me, for lack of a better way of putting it, suffers from a lack of smoothness and richness. 

 

I'm not for one minute going to say that reel to reel is more accurate, whatever that means. Because I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

 

I'll just say from a convenience and cost standpoint, I wish digital sounded better to me.

 

Reel to reel tape I could listen to critically for hours on end. Digital? Not so much.

 

However, I'm not giving up the chase.

 

Reel to reel is too expensive and inconvenient for me to rely on as a primary means of playback.

 

I believe that someday, with ever improving filters and computer technology, digital will be able to replicate any playback means available.

 

Thanks again.

 

Joel

 

 

 

I respect your attraction to analog tape. It's totally valid but I would say again that digital sounds more like the original than analg tape, IMO. That is all I mean. Yes, analog tape can sound deliciously gorgeous. But for classical, I think digital sounds more transparent and a little more 'life like' than analog tape. That's just my opinion. It's totally cool you like analog tape - I do too. But the sooth chocolate of tape has some trade offs.

 

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

I respect your attraction to analog tape. It's totally valid but I would say again that digital sounds more like the original than analg tape, IMO. 

 

 I imagine that 1st generation digital without a pile of other stuff mixed in does sound better than what most of us get to hear.

[joelha]

Right, Alex.

 

I'm actually actually using linear power supplies.

 

I have a linear power supply on my OS drive, my external hard drive, my server and even my wifi router.

 

As for the regulator pcb, I'll confess my ignorance and say I know what it is or how to install one.

 

Could you help me out there?

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Is this a great hobby or what?

 

Joel

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

Could you help me out there?

Hi Joel

 I will take this offline to stop the usual suspects from ruining the thread.

Regards

Alex

[fas42]

6 hours ago, joelha said:

Bachish,

 

Thanks for your message.

 

Having said that, in general, and this is a purely subjective finding, what tends to sound revealing about digital to me, for lack of a better way of putting it, suffers from a lack of smoothness and richness. 

 

I'm not for one minute going to say that reel to reel is more accurate, whatever that means. Because I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

 

I'll just say from a convenience and cost standpoint, I wish digital sounded better to me.

 

Reel to reel tape I could listen to critically for hours on end. Digital? Not so much.

 

However, I'm not giving up the chase.

 

Reel to reel is too expensive and inconvenient for me to rely on as a primary means of playback.

 

I believe that someday, with ever improving filters and computer technology, digital will be able to replicate any playback means available.

 

Thanks again.

 

Joel

 

 

 

The answers for getting digital to not "suffer from a lack of smoothness and richness" have always been around, right from the beginning years - but because it wasn't something exciting and 'magical' in concept it has never caught on, to this day. So chasing for answers with improved this or that is still very unlikely to make that "bad stuff" go away.

 

Interference and noise factors from a whole assortment of "little things" all add up, and cripple the potential for optimum sound from digital sources - only someone who understands what's happening can methodically go through a system with a fine tooth comb, and eliminate each culprit - and the end result is, highly satisfying sound.

 

This has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with troubleshooting - unfortunately, the latter is not very glamorous; pages of impressive maths are not involved, and hence this approach tends to get ignored . But, it is the answer ...

[marce]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 I imagine that 1st generation digital without a pile of other stuff mixed in does sound better than what most of us get to hear.

1st generation digital data is exactly the same as 1000th generation digital or even 1,000,000th time generation digital... It does not degrade.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, marce said:

1st generation digital data is exactly the same as 1000th generation digital or even 1,000,000th time generation digital... It does not degrade.

He might have meant digital straight from the ADC without any bizarre manipulations. Then again, it's Alex.

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, marce said:

1st generation digital data is exactly the same as 1000th generation digital or even 1,000,000th time generation digital... It does not degrade.

 

Rubbish !

The same applies to Digital Video too.

 I can  prove what I say, but you have shown that you aren't in the least interested in any  proof that challenges your out of date beliefs.

The same applies to several other high profile members including " Troll " who also managed to dismiss Mani's results as " pure chance" .

I have already made the proof available from esldude to any member who has access to a decent media player capable of playing high res .mp4 on BR discs via HDMI to a HD TV.

 

BYE !.

 

 

Quote

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester.-Cookie Marenco"

 

[mansr]

I thought you said you weren't going to ruin this thread with the usual nonsense.

[elcorso]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I thought you said you weren't going to ruin this thread with the usual nonsense.

 

The nonsense could come from someone claiming that a CD & CD player in 1986 had a good SQ ...!

 

Roch

[tmtomh]

6 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

The nonsense could come from someone claiming that a CD & CD player in 1986 had a good SQ ...!

 

Roch

 

The nonsense could come from folks attributing the wrong causes to the poor sound of some early CD players.

[tmtomh]

12 hours ago, joelha said:

If you haven't listened to it, then you're only theorizing.

 

If you've heard it, then I'll at least respect your opinion.

 

However, I'm far from along in my experience.

 

Joel

 

"Only theorizing" is far more sound than making baseless assertions. I haven't personally been on a boat or a plane that circled the entire earth, but I know it's not flat.

[elcorso]

19 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

The nonsense could come from folks attributing the wrong causes to the poor sound of some early CD players.

 

Of course the early CD players were unlistenable,  but the same with a great majority of CDs of that time. But wait, about three years ago I bought some whose origin was Norway. Extraordinary because they were of extraordinary recordings also, from the AAD period. Quite the opposite DDD Sony Classics of the same era ...!

 

As today I have no complaints with recording and digital playback, but I have not listened to analog recording and playback for a long time. Maybe not to suffer? ?

 

Roch

[marce]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Rubbish !

The same applies to Digital Video too.

 I can  prove what I say, but you have shown that you aren't in the least interested in any  proof that challenges your out of date beliefs.

The same applies to several other high profile members including " Troll " who also managed to dismiss Mani's results as " pure chance" .

I have already made the proof available from esldude to any member who has access to a decent media player capable of playing high res .mp4 on BR discs via HDMI to a HD TV.

 

BYE !.

 

 

 

If it was not true the whole IT industry, ethernet, would fail... A digital copy is an EXACT copy, however many time you copy it. When you first tarted this on DIYAudio I and others copied files from all over the place, no change in the data contained in such file at all....