The futur of computer Hi Fi?

[ssgp2]

I`m just getting back into Hi Fi and learned a lot on this site.

 

I find the different perspectives for acheiving the "best" reproduction confusing and intriguing at the same time.

I understand that such a subjective hobby will generate different points of view and that why I`ll submit this question.

 

Do you think the futur of computer Hi Fi will favor componants that are transparent and let the software apply the color preffered by the user?

 

 

PS: I just changed the title to reflect my interest in digital music.

 

 

 

[deckeda]

Seems like your question could have been asked at any time in hifi's history.

 

But computer-based audio reproduction increases greatly the repeatability of a change to the system, and one I think over time will favor transparency over euphonics for bringing pleasure.

 

Assuming of course we'll be able to buy good-sounding sources. That remains just as much a variable.

 

[esldude]

I think you have seen something very important. Computer audio and other current audio technology allows total system transparency, or truth to source which is in other words higher fidelity than ever before in history. It also offers better repeatability as mentioned than ever before in history. You have better and more precise control over all aspects of playback.

 

It is my opinion that we would be smart to shoot for maximum transparency and then let everyone add flavor to their taste using software. I think it might shake out like this in time. Yet you have some who have flavored their system away from transparency and don't believe that is what they have done. If it would become generally accepted as the case then more effort would be spent to supply useful subjective flavoring in audio. In the meantime some will continue to market things that provide desirable color in hardware often calling it higher fidelity when it actually is lower fidelity.

 

[wgb113]

My first response would be yes, computer-audio of some implementation will replace all others (especially digital) making it that much easier to choose your color pallet for a given piece of music.

 

Then you start to think about that colored presentation vs. transparency and much of the research that's been done on the subject shows that the majority of people actually prefer transparency over gear that colors the sound in one way or another.

 

So yes, I think that the option will be readily available in the near future but I also think that those who use it will be the relative minority.

 

Bill

 

 

[howlingfeedback]

Well in answer to your question, coloration to suit your sound can be found in most software today.

 

But speaking personaly, I prefere a natural sound with little interverence as possible, I think most folk want to hear the production, as good as it sounded when it was recorded, or a master studio version.

 

I thing with high res recordings getting close to what most of us want, but the choice is limited.

 

I was pleased to see the rock band Rush are going to reprduce their first 15 albums in the 24bit/96khz format, I hope many more bands follow suit.

 

[realhifi]

Just like in times gone by with different (wildly at times) sounding phono cartridges there is an ability to tweak the sound with the available programs available today.

 

Components in general have been moving closer and closer to being similar and similarly transparent much more than they were in the past (not a bad thing)so yes; the future favors components that are more transparent and closer to the source just as Mr. Holt would have hoped!

 

[Mark Powell]

A guy in England, then a professor at one of our top universities, Douglas Self, came out with the concept of 'Blameless Audio'. He was referring specifically to amplifiers but it applies to all pieces of a system. (Even software-based players.)

 

Basically he said that what goes out should be as close to what comes in as possible. This applies to ALL aspects of the sound, and 'warmth', 'euphony', 'a crisp top end', 'strong bass', 'smooth sound', 'seeking for a particular type of sound' and so on, whatever phrase you can think of, are all forms of distortion. Accuracy is the only valid goal. Otherwise it is not High Fidelity at all.

 

He also said that since we will never agree on which forms of distortion matter and which do not we should work towards reducing them ALL to such low levels that they cannot, individually or together, possibly affect the audible end result. (Opinion - following this idea, I have seen remarks in several places as to what level of jitter becomes audible. Don't bother, just get it as low as you can regardless.)

 

The most sensible thing I have ever heard about reproducing sound.

 

 

[sandyk]

Douglas Self is the author of a series of books on amplifier design, all aimed at getting the lowest possible measurable distortion. However, many people describe his published amplifiers as sounding bland and uninteresting.However, they do make excellent building blocks.Clearly, there is more to how things sound other than just the lowest possible noise and distortion figures.As an example , if you go even further with matching of the pair of differential input devices than he says is enough, by closely matching the input devices for both the VBE, (voltage across base and emitter) as well as a very good match for HFE (gain), as well as thermally coupling them, and then ensure that they have identical collector currents, then the sound stage is markedly improved, and there appears to be a further lowering of the noise floor. Given that the distortion figures are certainly no worse, then it would appear that there is some other parameter that has improved.

I think there needs to be more research done in this area.

Actual Current Mirror design plays a part here too.

(The Current Mirror is meant to provide identical collector current to both halves of the input differential pair, BUT it does not normally take into account the bias current requirements of the next stage, which reduces slightly the available collector current of the input transistor of the differential pair.)

Alex

 

[Chris M.]

In 5 years I predict the 2 forms of recorded media we will be able to purchase will be HiRez computer files and vinyl records. The failure of SACD and DVD-Audio was the nails in the coffin of optical discs.

 

[Brian A]

Quoting Chris M. on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 02:49:

"... Optical Discs are on their way out ..."

 

People like physical objects. CDs are a nice compact disk of material.

 

Most people don't care about sound quality as much as audiophiles do. My daughters are constantly burning CDs despite their iPods and automobile input jacks. (They totally destroy the CDs in a short time through physical abuse, but that is another matter.)

 

I think the CD format will still be here for a long time.

 

 

[Chris M.]

Well I won't be spending any money on a new disc transport. Right now I'm using the coaxial/SPDIF out of a $120 Sony DVD player when I do play CD's.

 

iMac G5-->HeadRoom Micro DAC-->HeadRoom Micro Amp-->AKG K702 headphones with Headphile cables-->PS Audio Duet/3 Noise Harvesters/Power Port AC receptacle.

 

[Brian A]

Submitted by Chris M. on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 03:47:

"...Well I won't be spending any money on a new disc transport..."

 

Nor will I. I just rip any new CD to Apple Lossless using my computer disk drive.

 

Maybe its just my "beer and sausage" taste (to quote Picasso), but I find that 16/44.1 is good enough for me (...he says having a big CD collection he is in the process of ripping).

 

[Chris M.]

I think high resolution music files are in their infancy. And the gear to play them will go down in price. I mean how good can a Rolling Stones album recorded in the early to mid 60's sound? Same with Dark Side of the Moon. You can't go back and re-record it. The newest set is $120. I think the laws of diminishing returns comes into play with these 48/196 files. I will be checking them out when the dust settles a bit.

 

[ssgp2]

Every time I read something about what can't be done in audio technology, I think about what is achieve in video production like HD, 3D and holograms.

 

Wizard of Oz is much nicer to watch in colour than it's original version.

 

I don't see any reason why audio wouldn't evolve the same way, if the motivation to produce a better product is there.

 

 

 

[Chris M.]

There's no doubt high-end audio will continue to advance and no one looks forward to that more than me. But there are a lot of issues that remain. What will be the digital format? I don't think Sony is going to endorse FLAC. What about the piracy issue? Will online stores like iTunes embrace a high resolution format? Remember most people are perfectly happy with their mp3's and $5 earbuds. Most of the music coming out today isn't worthy of high rez. Can you imagine paying top dollar for a lady GaGa record? And hopefully the gear will come down in price. Me personally? I can't afford a dCS Scarlatti. The Ayre QB-9 USB DAC is a good sign, but that's still $2500.

 

[Brian A]

Your point it well made, but your reference is inaccurate. Wizard of Oz was one of the first feature length movies orginally made in color:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)

 

 

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

As I recall Kansas was in B&W and the dream world of Oz was in color.

 

[Chris M.]

And Judy Garland was high on pills. Can they take an old recording like Steely Dan Aja, which was the record my audio engineering instructor played as an example of a high quality recording and production, and make it sound better than the analog master? Make it sound better than an audiophile vinyl pressing? I used to have a $38,500 system. I spent $14,000 on my analog front end and $3000 on digital. And I'd take the Pepsi challenge against any digital system, even the top-of-the-line dSC. I don't see any digital format beating a well done turntable system. That's why when CD's are an anachronism, vinyl will still be happening.

 

[Paul R]

I find that vinyl has a sound that is most appealing, but that digital recordings can perhaps be somewhat more true to the actual sound. That is, discounting all the artificiality imposed by mics and other electronics.

 

Neither digital or analog/vinyl comes close to the full body reality of being at a real concert to me, but both formats are enjoyable and satisfy in different ways.

 

But the actual point I was thinking of is about Judy Garland. In the movie _The Harvey Girls_, shot in the late 1940s (I think) they did a big production number; On the Atchison, Topeka, and The Santa Fe.

 

This was of course, presented in monaural sound at the time, but, they were using the then new technique of multiple cameras simultaneously recording the same scene. And of course, each camera setup had a microphone setup too.

 

More than a half century later, they figured out they have enough sound material to mix the production in stereo, and the remix is fantastic. Both on multi-channel video and ripped to two channel stereo.

 

That isn't exactly to your point, but yeah - as technology advances, it is certainly feasible that the sound of older recordings can be improved. At least, I would not bet against it.

 

-Paul

 

 

[1audio]

mastered using digital technology and digital sources. But you get those wonderful vinyl colorations.

 

A standard trick in audio production is to pass the signal through a tape recorder to add some desirable colorations. All analog dither? And there are VST effects to try to emulate those qualities.

 

[Chris M.]

Man, you really like that movie. The thing about analog is setting your rig up can be a real undertaking. Isolating your turntable from acoustic and physical vibrations is a challenge. I was on a suspended floor so I had to drill small holes in the floor next to the stand's spikes, pass a small wire through it, and set a floorjack that went from the basement floor to the joist where the stands spikes were. My turntable stand was a 3 pillar so that made it easier. I set a floorjack next to each pillar/spike. That's just one task I had to perform. There were many others. My disc transport and DAC? Put Black Diamond Racing cones under them and a bag of #8 lead shot on top of each unit. Had all source equipment plugged into a PS Audio P-300 Power Plant. What an amazing device that was. Problem is it could only handle 300 watts. My Pass power amp idled at 300 watts. The new line PS Audio just released can handle up to 1250 watts. It also cost $4500. When I lost my job I had to sell my system as well as a $30,000 record collection. But I'm happy with my modest $2100 headphone based system. But done right, vinyl can be magic!

 

[barrows]

Very few people have any reference at all for what "neutral" or "transparent" would really be. Sure, many of us can hear when detail retrieval is improved, but tonal "neutrality"???

There is no way to hear what a "neutral" color is, with the possible exception of being present during recording of a live musical event, and the subsequent final mastering of the recording of that event. During mastering (and mixing before that) the tonal presentation may be adjusted to taste, so I would submit that the tonal presentation heard over the monitor speakers during mastering would be the "neutral" presentation we are attempting to reproduce.

So, if one is present during mastering (and sitting in the exact same location as the mastering engineer) and has perfect memory of the tonality at that time, then one could use that reference to evaluate how close their home system comes to "neutrality".

Since very few of us have the references described above, and none of us have perfect aural memory of tone, it appears that we are not be able to accurately evaluate tonal "neutrality/transparency" in our own systems.

I would submit that we are better off building systems which sound subjectively good to us (using the music we like to listen to as references) rather than foolishly thinking we are approaching some kind of absolute "neutral/transparent" reference sound.

 

[Brian A]

Quoting Chris M. on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 08:33:

"... setting your rig up can be a real undertaking...drill small holes in the floor ... set a floorjack ... from the basement floor to the joist ... My turntable stand was a 3 pillar ... a bag of #8 lead shot on top of each unit... vinyl can be magic!..."

 

Gawd... that's why my turntable is on a shelf in the garage (next to the insecticide and fertilizer).

 

I guess I am just saysing that I am glad there is digital. (Sorry for the snark - Currently in a lounge at Lagos Nigeria airport drinking a beer glass sized gin and tonic. No ice.) Good vinyl IS pretty amazing.

 

 

 

 

[Chris M.]

There are many caveats when it comes to analog playback. First off, is the record mastering done well. Are the stampers fresh? Is the vinyl audiophile quality and thickness? Then the record must be cleaned in a high quality vacuum record cleaning machine to remove the mold release compounds. Then the record must be treated with Last record Preservative. All that and you haven't even placed it on your turntable!! I had a David Bowie MoFi I played well over a hundred times and there was no noise from wear or pops and clicks. You don't want me to tell you how to set up your turntable.

 

My point is is the signal starts out analog and it remains analog from studio to living room. But it's a lot of goddamn hassle.

 

My analog rig was: VPI HW19Mk. lV with TNT bearing and platter. A stand alone motor assembly with motor speed contoler, A Graham 2.0 tonearm, a Benz-Micro Ruby 3 cartridge, a Pass Aleph Ono phono stage, Graham IC-30 phono cable, Target 3 pillar stand. The stand had hollow pillars so I could fill them with sand and lead shot. a Brightstar sand filled base, weighted about 110 pounds, audiopoint brass spikes, Black Diamond Racing carbon fiber pucks, record clamp, cones, and a platform for the motor. The record clamp cost $500 alone. A VPI 16.5 record cleaning machine. Transparent Plus balanced interconnects. all in all about 14 large.You would not believe how invoved and sometimes frustrating it was to set all this up.

 

So why go through all that when you can buy a transport and a DAC, set them up on a quality stand, maybe with cones and discs and start listening to music?

 

Because when done right, analog is magic. My old dealer let me take home a $12,000 Mark Levinson single box CD player with $6000 Transparent Premium balanced interconnects. This unit had it'd own volume control, so I hooked it straight to my Pass Aleph 5. This is still the best sounding digital I've ever heard. But it still didn't have the smooth, warm, liquid sound my analog rig had.

 

This is why vinyl records, one of the oldest music formats, ain't going anywhere. Maybe computer based high definition will surpass analog someday, but I remain skeptical.

 

 

 

[elcorso]

Chris M., SACD is still alive!

 

There are at least 7,000 titles in the street and more coming.

 

DSD rip (scarlet book) is winning a lot of adepts.

 

DSD DACs and apps (native playing DSD) are beginning this year, and there were be some more next year.

 

I know Sony is promoting now DSD more than ever.

 

DVD-Audio has no sense since you can DL hi rez.

 

Roch