Jump to content

esldude

Members
  • Content Count

    11355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About esldude

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What's the digital version?
  2. Oh of course. But TDK has audiophile cred from the cassette tape days.
  3. I've seen the TDK Lamda chips used for this. Some versions of those are able to isolate input from output sides. Other companies make similar of course. Most aren't isolating.
  4. Now generally this is bs. However, I've a Pioneer Universal SACD, CD, DVD player for which there is a bit truth to this. I burned a CD with some test signals on it including a Jtest. Eventually another one with several Jtest tracks. When you started the track, it has horrendous jitter, huge amounts of it. After 15 seconds the jitter gradually decreases until it has reached a steady and low level by 28-30 seconds. From then on jitter is rather low. So, don't pause and start your tracks. You'll get bad, bad jitter juju for 30 seconds until it clears up. You've no idea how bad it makes me feel to say there could be something to this considering what a garbage, trash, crap article that is. What HiFi hit an all time low for themselves on this one. Their newest staff writer Becky Scarrott is a real maroon. Hopefully it is a pen name because she should be ashamed to use her real name on this dreck. She deserves to be canned for penning this.
  5. I agree, but think it is very good otherwise. Try a 2 db shelf down at 6 khz and above. See what you think then.
  6. Yes he is a loudspeaker maker. His reasoning makes more sense than Ivor's however. Though it is worth remembering Ivor was speaking of turntables which the whole TT, arm and cartridge thing only slightly trails the speaker in terms of how far from fidelity they can be. In a chain of events the weak link is the weak link no matter where in the chain. In years past it was speaker, TT, amplifier, preamp in that order. Now it is speaker, amplifier and everything else. Most improvement for least money depends upon from where you are starting. Most likely it will still be the speaker in most cases. It is definitively the worst place to try and save money.
  7. You'll have to go with bone conduction for hearing.
  8. Also here is a description of the sound of the Wilson demo from someone who was there. It is in the introduction to the review of some other loudspeakers. https://positive-feedback.com/Issue60/vienna.htm
  9. BTW, had a minute to find the old thread on the Wilson. The links to Wilson don't work any longer. I will quote what Dave Wilson said about why he did the demo this way. Well quoting Dave Wilson: The demonstration was meant to explore some prejudices in the way people look at system hierarchy. to me, that means determining which element of the system is the most critical in determining the quality and the character of the sound the listener will experience. And in thinking about that, I came down to the three most important factors. First is the microphone used in the recordings. Another is room acoustics, and then the third is loudspeakers. . . . The loudspeaker is, to me, the most critical element in the playback chain. The purpose of that experiment was to show that the quality of the loudspeaker overrules the quality of the amplifier, the quality of the cables, and even the quality of the signal source. Loudspeakers are the least perfect devices in the system and yet they have the hardest job. . . . Because there is such a range between the poorest to the best loudspeaker, it behooves the customer to anchor the system with the best loudspeakers that he can, and then to build the rest of the system around that.
  10. There regularly are things that should prick the consciousness of audiophiles, but being uncomfortable are allowed to fade away. Mansr mentioned the Oppo in a Lexicon (there have been similar fabrications like the Theta transport which was a Pioneer inside). I've a thread here somewhere about a 2004 audio show where Wilson had one of their big speakers sort of sharing a space with a top of the line B&W setup. The Wilson appeared to be very expensive and the B&W even more so. Most judged the Wilson the better sounding rig. At the conclusion of the show it was revealed much of the electronic stack on the Wilson system was a sham. The source was a hidden 16 bit iPod. A 2004 iPod mind you. The amp was a hidden $1100 amp. Somehow the golden ears failed to hear the lack of a $20k amp and $12k source that was on view. These uncomfortable events just don't have any sticking power in the mind of the audiophile world. They are too embarrassing, and too dangerous to the audiophile ego. So I think many have the same thoughts and questions you do about where can we really draw the line on performance. The article that inspired this thread is one of dozens if not hundreds of strong indications the line can be draw very much further down than most are comfortable with. That sight of and knowledge about what you are listening to has a big sway upon your opinion of what you are hearing. You won't see too many such comparisons done however. When someone attempts them the general audiophile world is incredibly hostile. I might point to a couple threads where I offered 8th generation DA/AD copies vs digital originals. Few participated in listening or least few admitted it publicly. While both threads were pretty long mostly with those claiming I was attacking the audiophile. The same result in a similar thread where I offered copies vs digital originals that had gone through a couple very good DACs, an old laptop soundcard, and a smartphone. To read and believe the world of the high end audiophile all of those should have been so different as to be laughable. Instead nothing, but contempt for bringing up the subject, and once again very few participants. Chris doesn't like people trying to save folks from themselves. That sometimes intersects with simply trying to find out about the truth of something. It most clearly is true most audiophiles don't want to either be saved from their expensive hobby or even know the truth. Something about it has extremely high value to them beyond expense or truth.
  11. I ran across this somewhere else at one time. My suggestion was to put a peltier like people use on overclocked CPU's onto the DAC chip. Should do the trick silently if not in an energy efficient manner.
  12. Alright did some checking on this today. Haven't captured the digital signal, as doing that is inconvenient at the moment. I did record using an Earthworks microphone 1 meter from my speakers (which have a response to 24 khz). The Youtube TV sound via two different sources has a dead sharp cut-off at 15,700 hz. Don't know why this would sound icky to me unless such a sharp filter in the audible band is the problem (such things are known to be audible). I wouldn't think that alone would cause this, but it indicates some different processing. The bottom end on some programming seems reduced below 50 hz, but that wasn't consistent on everything. Recording satellite programming to the DVR so I could measure it after the fact for comparing to Youtube, response dropped off at 20 khz, and it wasn't a complete chop off. General balance below 15 khz and above 50 hz seems if not exact very close to the same for both sources. So not mystery solved, but something is definitely different.
  13. Careful Mr. Dyson, we'll end up with MQA DolbyA.
  14. On the Critical Mass Rack $6250 per component space seemed kind of high. Until you realize it is just the space and doesn't include the component. Critical myAss.
×
×
  • Create New...