A couple of weeks with the AVI ADM 9'1s :-)

[Ashley James]

That can easily happen if the improvement given by ADM9.1s is big enough. I've heard it.

 

Ash

 

[prowla]

Wow - that certainly is an impressive claim, that it is possible to make a lossy 128 bits download sound better than a well respected CD player!

 

[GazD]

As has been mentioned before it really does depend on the track that is being played.

 

[GazD]

That is to say that results vary depending on type of music etc.

 

[Ashley James]

I'm no expert but Martin and I did spend some time discussing compression and it's impact on sound with Paul White and Hugh Robjohns of Sound On Sound. These chaps are extremely knowledgeable and helpful and understand far better than Audiophiles the way our music is made and what's being done to get the best from it.

 

In the main the MP3s you buy are 256K or more and AAC's, which is a better system are 128 or 256K and these are the biggest sellers of all music now. Therefore music tends to be produced in a way that gives the best possible results with compressed media.

 

It's also important to understand that different types of music compress differently. Because it doesn't have as much HF as Pop, Classical Music can sound amazingly good. You could try some of the Naxos streams if you were interested.

Equally heavily compressed and bright Metallica isn't compressible and may sound unpleasant with too much.

 

These are extreme examples, but what they indicate is that it's possible to hear a 128K MP3 that sounds better than a full file. I have (by accident) an Eva Cassidy song that sounds pretty good, but the other day a potential customer turned up with the same song sounding much worse and I presumed it was compressed. But it wasn't and mine was and sounded far better. They were two different recordings of the same song and you could hear the better one even after it had been compressed.

 

129K MP3s actually sound slightly soft and dull compared to the original and they are pleasant to listen to and can tame a harsh recording. I prefer vinyl made into one!

 

However I saw some measurements of a modern and very expensive amplifier recently and was amazed to see that it measured much worse than a Quad 405 II did 25 years ago! In particular there was less channel separation than a record player cartridge. I think it likely that compression artefacts in a very poor performer like this could make MP3s sound unpleasant and account for some people's strong objections.

 

Please don't assume from this posting that I prefer or promote compression, like everyone else I'd like to be without out it, however if it's the only way to get some music, then it's more than worth having. None of this has a bearing on Tim's original post that I'm sure sure he'll clarify as soon as he's able.

 

Ash

 

 

 

[prowla]

I still find it amazing that a compressed 128 kbps file can sound better than a CD on a Meridian CD player!

I have found that 128 is at best acceptable.

Clearly it is an efficient way of storing information to allow throughput on a limited channel, or to store lots of files on an iPod, but it's not an Audiophile format.

 

[timbo]

...sorry for being absent for a while, its that time of year again, it always seems like things ramp up as Crimbo approaches and I have only just found time to catchup on my email! I believe I said that a 128 bit internet stream grabbed my attention and that it can sound great - which it can. I didn't do any testing of 128 bit feeds through the SB/Meridian/Ruark as compared to SB/ADM's - by then I was into playing my own stuff which is Apple lossless so not lossy compressed at all.

 

I can say categorically that I do still have my ears surprised by these speakers on a regular basis, whether it be from Last.FM or my own ripped lossless recordings. A good exercise is to play your 'library' on Last.FM (which is their MP3 version of stuff you own and have scrobbled) and then quickly switch back to you own lossless recording - it isn't always night and day by a long chalk :-)

 

[boefmans]

nice review,

 

I bought them and, as stated, they are great. Did i understand correctly in the review that the adm's need soms time playing before really opening up (like headphones?).

 

The sound reminds me a bit of the active speakers from philips, many years ago. (dss900 or someting). THe reviews at those days as wel: too cheap for what u get (they costed around 4000 euros, including cd player, controller, dat player etc.). It flopped, philips not having the high end audio name ;-) But they surely seemed to be correct that active speakers are the future...

 

[boefmans]

Just compared the old philips dsc set (still worth 700 euros, for a15 year old set ;-)

as to be expected now: why did i like that sound in the first place ;-), cant really listen closely to those no more after using the 9.1's for a few weeks

 

Well, the owner of that old stuff will soon make an appointment with the avi dealer in the netherlands, thats for sure ;-D

 

[wolfgang]

New to the forum. I have been using the AVI Pronine for few years.

 

Having heard the Mackie HR624 m2 briefly at a shop the world of active monitors seemed very promising. I have not have a chance to listen to the ADM9.1 yet.

 

I wonder for those who have much experience listening to both of the above speakers (or other active monitors) what makes you decide on speakers you end up with. Or was it the differences in features that make to go for one rather then the other?

 

Thanks.