Unfortunately... yes!
However, with a real interest, a will to learn and love to music, $1200 can take you pretty far IMO.
"Anyone" can install a clock in most players. It´s really not that difficult. On the other hand, a modded player can be bought from some companies.
My budget set up for you Brushpilot
;
A Sony or Pioneer CDP $300
Upgrade kit, clock + analog $400
2 way speaker kit $300 (Peerless HDS + Vifa XT for ex.)
Chipamp/gainclone $150
Cables + connectors $50
Without doubt this ca: $1200 rig will compare to someting good in the shop or hifi show retailing for $10000 or so. Of course I assume that a couple of weekends of your time is "for free" and a pure joyride.
/Peter
However, with a real interest, a will to learn and love to music, $1200 can take you pretty far IMO.
"Anyone" can install a clock in most players. It´s really not that difficult. On the other hand, a modded player can be bought from some companies.
My budget set up for you Brushpilot
;A Sony or Pioneer CDP $300
Upgrade kit, clock + analog $400
2 way speaker kit $300 (Peerless HDS + Vifa XT for ex.)
Chipamp/gainclone $150
Cables + connectors $50
Without doubt this ca: $1200 rig will compare to someting good in the shop or hifi show retailing for $10000 or so. Of course I assume that a couple of weekends of your time is "for free" and a pure joyride.
/Peter
arniel said:
I haven't heard the DSC stuff, but have the Linn CD-12 and the high end Audio Note. CDs can at least be enjoyable -- even with more modest players than these... but these still don't outperform a good vinyl playback system.... and the vinyl system can be quite a bit less expensive.
dave
planet10 said:
I don't know the Audionote stuff, but I've never really liked Linn solid state stuff, apart from the Pretek preamp that I own (bought used purely on listening tests). I find a lot of their stuff very "hifi"... more real than reality if you know what I mean!
Like Peter says, digital setups need not cost a fortune, esp. as mechanical considerations play a much smaller influence on the final sound than electronic considerations, and as we know, good engineering costs money.
Hi,
Not a CD hater per se and yes I heard upsamplers, oversamplers, dither, jitter, you name it.
Cheap players, expensive players, high-end players and DACs, yet I always hear the same sterile sound emanating from them.
I'm sure many others feel the same way about it too.
Don't get me wrong, I can listen to CD....
Unfortunately not for very long though, whether I want to or not. I can't help but notice that I start looking for something else to do; a chat with a friend, a cup of coffee, anything.
It's really odd but I just seem to lose interest.
It simply all sounds like sonic wallpaper to me....most of the time anyway.
Mind you I experience the same problem with digital photographs as well, same lifeless image staring back at me: nothing artistic about it. Dead.
Come to think of it the Linn LP12, despite it's shortcomings, manages to play a tune, make you want to tap your feet, dance, follow the score. In a word it makes music an interesting experience. Art.
Now I wish I could say the same of a CDP, I do...I just can't.
Cheers,
Not a CD hater per se and yes I heard upsamplers, oversamplers, dither, jitter, you name it.
Cheap players, expensive players, high-end players and DACs, yet I always hear the same sterile sound emanating from them.
I'm sure many others feel the same way about it too.
Don't get me wrong, I can listen to CD....
Unfortunately not for very long though, whether I want to or not. I can't help but notice that I start looking for something else to do; a chat with a friend, a cup of coffee, anything.
It's really odd but I just seem to lose interest.
It simply all sounds like sonic wallpaper to me....most of the time anyway.
Mind you I experience the same problem with digital photographs as well, same lifeless image staring back at me: nothing artistic about it. Dead.
Come to think of it the Linn LP12, despite it's shortcomings, manages to play a tune, make you want to tap your feet, dance, follow the score. In a word it makes music an interesting experience. Art.
Now I wish I could say the same of a CDP, I do...I just can't.
Cheers,
fdegrove said:Hi,
Come to think of it the Linn LP12, despite it's shortcomings, manages to play a tune, make you want to tap your feet, dance, follow the score. In a word it makes music an interesting experience. Art.
Now I wish I could say the same of a CDP, I do...I just can't.
Cheers,
Not surprising, there was an interesting shoot-out between the LP12 and the CD12 at a UK show and the LP12(cheaper than the CD12) still got the majority of the vote. See link below.
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/featureshtml/linnreport.html
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
I've worked in a studio before. We record music, run it through compressors and limiters before sending it off to pressed to LPs.
We had identical recordings on both CD and LP. I too prefer the LP version.
I suspect it is the rolled off highs for more relaxed listening, therefore relatively more warm upper mids. Especially on all these modern speakers with flat response out to 20Khz (or worse, jagged response in mid and upper treble (2.5-10Khz). Also the slightly increased spectrum of higher order harmonic distortion may be perceived at increase detail/musicality?
Lower fidelity (=accuracy) but definitely easier on the ears. More romantic.
The best analogy I can think of when comparing to the visual system using a soft focus lens, or Adobe Photoshop to soften/touchup etc.
In the home studio sometimes we use T-Racks software to emulate the vinyl lound. Not exactly the same but gives us a good idea.
We had identical recordings on both CD and LP. I too prefer the LP version.
I suspect it is the rolled off highs for more relaxed listening, therefore relatively more warm upper mids. Especially on all these modern speakers with flat response out to 20Khz (or worse, jagged response in mid and upper treble (2.5-10Khz). Also the slightly increased spectrum of higher order harmonic distortion may be perceived at increase detail/musicality?
Lower fidelity (=accuracy) but definitely easier on the ears. More romantic.
The best analogy I can think of when comparing to the visual system using a soft focus lens, or Adobe Photoshop to soften/touchup etc.
In the home studio sometimes we use T-Racks software to emulate the vinyl lound. Not exactly the same but gives us a good idea.
fdegrove said:Hi,
Not a CD hater per se and yes I heard upsamplers, oversamplers, dither, jitter, you name it.
Cheap players, expensive players, high-end players and DACs, yet I always hear the same sterile sound emanating from them.
I'm sure many others feel the same way about it too.
Don't get me wrong, I can listen to CD....
Unfortunately not for very long though, whether I want to or not. I can't help but notice that I start looking for something else to do; a chat with a friend, a cup of coffee, anything.
It's really odd but I just seem to lose interest.
It simply all sounds like sonic wallpaper to me....most of the time anyway.
Mind you I experience the same problem with digital photographs as well, same lifeless image staring back at me: nothing artistic about it. Dead.
Come to think of it the Linn LP12, despite it's shortcomings, manages to play a tune, make you want to tap your feet, dance, follow the score. In a word it makes music an interesting experience. Art.
Now I wish I could say the same of a CDP, I do...I just can't.
Cheers,
This might explain why Episode 1 of the Star Wars series was so crap (recorded using digital cameras)!
Seriously, do you perceive this problem with movies as well? After all, they're virtually all scanned in and digitally edited these days, and of course the sound is digital (DTS/Dolby).
What about DVB/HD TV?
And can you tell an LP that was mastered digitally from one that wasn't (without reading the label).
Only time I have heard a CD12 was at a Hi-Fi show... it was too painful to bear for long... had that Linn sound that grates after a while. Like a TV with the colour turned all the way up, it was too false, but the music was that dull jazz musak that they always seem to use. Sure, it was an "audiophile" recording, but musically bleugh.
At the same show I heard the Dcs Purcell running from a CD transport. Sublimely smooth, I could have listed all night.
arniel said:
Yes, the difference can be perceived... digital won't com full stride until digital projection is in place, then digital will gain the advantage that there won't be film to degrade.
Usually yes. It really is dissappointing getting an LP & then not being able to listen to it because of the digital artifacts.
dave
So, I have one question for all the bashing of analog that I often hear, and I have read in this thread.
How do we come to the digital version of the music that is recorded? For those of you who have taken calculus in your life, you will understand that you are taking the integral of the curve. It is the mathmatic approximation of the area under the curve. We use steps to approximate the shape of sound waves. Now don't get me wrong I have and listen to CD's. They are pretty good, but they are not analog.
Two years ago at the Montreal HIFI show, there was a demo of a Nagra reel to reel with a second generation master tape, and a SACD version of the same recording made from the first generation master. Traditional logic would say that the digital would not lose as much information in copying, and would not be subject to the wear, stretch, and warble issues of the tape. But when I llistened to the demo in a blind test (we were not told which was which until after) I left the room lusting reel to reel master tape, not SACD. I asked the vendor what the point of his demo was. He told me it was to show "how close to the master tape their digital process was". I asked him if they would be selling copies of the master tapes in analog format.
I have heard digital sound as good as vinyl (or at least arguably so), but the price tag on the digital equipment was more than double that of the analog. The human ears are able to percieve things that often don't make a whole lot of sense to me, but this one I believe I understand. The sharp edges created by digital formats are easily percieved by the (at least my) ears and for all the other limitations of analog, it is more listenable and pleasant because it is closer to the truth of the analog sound produced by instruments.
Dave
PS Movies are digitized for the non destructive editing flexability. What we see is still the 35mm fild cut and spliced. And Star Wars Episode 1 sucked because very few people can act well in front of a blue screen for that long. (especially without the best direction)
How do we come to the digital version of the music that is recorded? For those of you who have taken calculus in your life, you will understand that you are taking the integral of the curve. It is the mathmatic approximation of the area under the curve. We use steps to approximate the shape of sound waves. Now don't get me wrong I have and listen to CD's. They are pretty good, but they are not analog.
Two years ago at the Montreal HIFI show, there was a demo of a Nagra reel to reel with a second generation master tape, and a SACD version of the same recording made from the first generation master. Traditional logic would say that the digital would not lose as much information in copying, and would not be subject to the wear, stretch, and warble issues of the tape. But when I llistened to the demo in a blind test (we were not told which was which until after) I left the room lusting reel to reel master tape, not SACD. I asked the vendor what the point of his demo was. He told me it was to show "how close to the master tape their digital process was". I asked him if they would be selling copies of the master tapes in analog format.
I have heard digital sound as good as vinyl (or at least arguably so), but the price tag on the digital equipment was more than double that of the analog. The human ears are able to percieve things that often don't make a whole lot of sense to me, but this one I believe I understand. The sharp edges created by digital formats are easily percieved by the (at least my) ears and for all the other limitations of analog, it is more listenable and pleasant because it is closer to the truth of the analog sound produced by instruments.
Dave
PS Movies are digitized for the non destructive editing flexability. What we see is still the 35mm fild cut and spliced. And Star Wars Episode 1 sucked because very few people can act well in front of a blue screen for that long. (especially without the best direction)
DaveM said:
I think it has a lot to do with harmonics. If the ultrasonics are not chopped of there be more air . Those who have tried supertweeters on their main speaker often observe that surprisingly the bass also becomes better
See link below an article on harmonics.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Hi,
Which is why I swear by OTL tube amps and ribbon tweeters. Just that less phase anomalies and a more open, airy sound with great transient attack.
The odd thing is, you'd think that with a BW limited source such as vinyl it wouldn't matter but it makes a world of difference nonetheless...
Most of the time, yes. Especially when I know what the analogue version sounds like.
ADD CDs are much more palatable to me as well even when played back on rather ordinary CDPs.
In fact if CDs where mostly ADD issues I'd buy much more of them, I'm sure.
We had the same demo going at the Frankfurt High-End show by Mr. Kudelski (Nagra CEO, I think) and most of the attendants felt exactly the same way as yourself.
Much depends how you'd define "fidelity" in the first place: in the traditional sense you're quite correct but outside conventional measurements digital is perceived as lower fidelity by lots of people.
After the first impression has worn of, people are left feeling something's missing. If something actually IS missing then fidelity is compromised as well, isn't it?
Cheers,
Which is why I swear by OTL tube amps and ribbon tweeters. Just that less phase anomalies and a more open, airy sound with great transient attack.
The odd thing is, you'd think that with a BW limited source such as vinyl it wouldn't matter but it makes a world of difference nonetheless...
Most of the time, yes. Especially when I know what the analogue version sounds like.
ADD CDs are much more palatable to me as well even when played back on rather ordinary CDPs.
In fact if CDs where mostly ADD issues I'd buy much more of them, I'm sure.
We had the same demo going at the Frankfurt High-End show by Mr. Kudelski (Nagra CEO, I think) and most of the attendants felt exactly the same way as yourself.
Much depends how you'd define "fidelity" in the first place: in the traditional sense you're quite correct but outside conventional measurements digital is perceived as lower fidelity by lots of people.
After the first impression has worn of, people are left feeling something's missing. If something actually IS missing then fidelity is compromised as well, isn't it?
Cheers,
fdegrove said:Hi,
Which is why I swear by OTL tube amps and ribbon tweeters. Just that less phase anomalies and a more open, airy sound with great transient attack.
Cheers,
Btw I just heard the Acepella Plasma tweeters the other day. It's so so much better than all the megabucks Ribbon, ceramic, ESL, horn...... tweeters that it scary. I think if the plasma tweeters is hooked up to a SOTA vinyl source with OTLs I'll probally pee in my pants
DaveM
In that reel to reel and SACD comparison, what where the actual SACD machine?
Reason I ask is it seems "wrong" IMO to give thumbs down to a format when most likely it was an inferior machine.
As you mention later, really good hirez machines is very good sounding, and that is expensive according to you. If you carefully read my earlier posts you may come to realise that a premium sound can be had at a budget.
Once again I must repeat myself; you will not come close to hearing what SACD is capable of if you use a stock clock and relatively slow opamps in the DAC analog stage I/V (V/V)conversion.
/Peter
In that reel to reel and SACD comparison, what where the actual SACD machine?
Reason I ask is it seems "wrong" IMO to give thumbs down to a format when most likely it was an inferior machine.
As you mention later, really good hirez machines is very good sounding, and that is expensive according to you. If you carefully read my earlier posts you may come to realise that a premium sound can be had at a budget.
Once again I must repeat myself; you will not come close to hearing what SACD is capable of if you use a stock clock and relatively slow opamps in the DAC analog stage I/V (V/V)conversion.
/Peter
DaveM said:
There's a difference between bashing something and saying that something else is better that you seem to have missed.
Please show me where anyone has said that vinyl is bad per se. What I perceive people are saying here is basically that vinyl can sound fantastic, but digital media have the potential to sound even better, partly due to the negation of mechanical issues.
The output of a DAC may have steps, but the output of the player does not. After the DAC comes an analogue filter section THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCESS. Just like every turntable has to have an RIAA stage between it and a pre-amp, even if that stage is integrated in the same box as the amp.
Again, an easy test is to take a test disc with a 20kHz wave in it and direct the output of the CD player to an oscilloscope. You will NOT see a square wave, which is what your statement above implies. You will see a sine wave.
I've gotta admit, I'm really bored with the whole analog vs redbook vs hirez debate.
Vinyl is clearly superior* to all digital formats (for me!, I appreciate others have a different experience) for one simple reason: there are thousands of titles available out there on vinyl, that have never even been released on CD let alone SACD/DVDA. I can easily find more titles, more cheaply on vinyl that I want to listen to, and in the end that's what it comes down to. The music is what it's ultimately all about for me.
If I had to listen to what's available on hirez only, I'd rather listen to talkback radio.
* caveat: the great advantage of digital is that it's allowed a lot of people to be able to record their own work and distribute it more readily than would likely have been the case with an analog only world, and that's given me the chance to experience a ton of music I otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to hear.
Vinyl is clearly superior* to all digital formats (for me!, I appreciate others have a different experience) for one simple reason: there are thousands of titles available out there on vinyl, that have never even been released on CD let alone SACD/DVDA. I can easily find more titles, more cheaply on vinyl that I want to listen to, and in the end that's what it comes down to. The music is what it's ultimately all about for me.
If I had to listen to what's available on hirez only, I'd rather listen to talkback radio.
* caveat: the great advantage of digital is that it's allowed a lot of people to be able to record their own work and distribute it more readily than would likely have been the case with an analog only world, and that's given me the chance to experience a ton of music I otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to hear.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.