John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[dennis h]

Originally Posted by john curl

My favorite portable radio.

Why am I not surprised, thanks for the history John...
dennis

[zinsula]

Abraxalito, you mentioned that you are now listening to 24/96 upsampled material.
Do you this by software and then saving the files on Hdd? Playing back through non OS hardware i suppose...
If yes, which software do you use?

[abraxalito]

Please check out my blog link (<--- over to the left) - the upsampling hardware is my own take on OS but its not published because I'm too lazy not because I'm protecting it for commercial gain

[sofaspud]

It's rather saddening to me. I've spoken with some younger music listeners lately, and they tell me they like the "dense" compressed sound and the artificial (OK, synthesized) tones of modern recordings. They even go on about how "life-like" it is; true hi-fi is boring.
Oh, but they did compliment my system.

[RNMarsh]

because the world wants to be more and more interconnected by mobile products- portability and thus digital- are the new normal. And, if you are listening to your hand held device or are in a car -- ambient noise is an issue --> So, we have compressed recordings.
Listening to music only at home in a quiet setting is not the norm (any more). Simple as that. CD's et al are mixed for portable/mobile products and their invironments. Doesnt look like that is going to change for a long time. So where does that leave one who wants clean, clear, dynamic sound? For me, the answere is in high-def digital downloads of uncompressed masters.
-RNM

[gpapag]

Then, enjoy

Animusic HD - Resonant Chamber (1080p) - YouTube

George

[john curl]

Well, I have heard the 'cynicisms' of SACD, by the people who are perfectly happy with CD, but I have hope that what I hear is what is real, and that a GOOD SACD is better than any CD that I have presently. I do have some good CD's but I think the recorded material is the fundamental reason it passes so well within the CD format. However, the vinyl version sounded even better, at least with one good example. I'll stick with SACD or anything BETTER that comes down the road.
In my long history, I have heard the same complaints about 30 ips. You know, too expensive, lousy low frequency response, etc. BUT, listening AND FIXING the potential problems, like I did with the bass response at 30 ips, is called PROGRESS. I hope the same for advanced digital reproduction.

[Nelson Pass]

Originally Posted by hitsware

@ 33 1/3 RPM ?

Mostly. Some are 45. Take a look at the vinyl section on Amazon,
particularly Dance and DJ, and of course there's lots of other.

[fas42]

Originally Posted by john curl

Well, I have heard the 'cynicisms' of SACD, by the people who are perfectly happy with CD, but I have hope that what I hear is what is real, and that a GOOD SACD is better than any CD that I have presently. I do have some good CD's but I think the recorded material is the fundamental reason it passes so well within the CD format. However, the vinyl version sounded even better, at least with one good example. I'll stick with SACD or anything BETTER that comes down the road.
In my long history, I have heard the same complaints about 30 ips. You know, too expensive, lousy low frequency response, etc. BUT, listening AND FIXING the potential problems, like I did with the bass response at 30 ips, is called PROGRESS. I hope the same for advanced digital reproduction.

For the afficionados of DBT, going through the exercise of SACD(1) -> CD -> SACD(2) via resampling, and testing SACD(1) against SACD(2) will be ear opening for many: I, for one, wouldn't bet on significant ability to differentiate!

As far as I'm concerned "advanced digital reproduction" will only occur when people in general, in the industry bite the bullet, and realise you can't be sloppy with digital and get away with it. Unlike analogue. And, do it at the cheaper end of the pricing scale. Again: digital playback is a hard taskmaster, it takes no prisoners ...

Frank

[john curl]

In parts of the outside world, highest quality audio is still sought with gusto! Somewhat of a departure from many opinions that audio quality, beyond a certain point, is illusory.
In my life experience, it is still real, and relatively subtle modifications still make a difference.
Given that, we still have the problem of good sources. They REALLY are few and far between, but there is hope. As digital processing becomes better and less 'compromised' we are going to have a certain percentage of better source material, almost by 'accident' as well as made deliberately by specialist sources, such as Chesky, and others.
One weak link is the analog portion of the digital playback sources. They are marginal, yet probably measure fairly well.
This is not a new 'fact'. There is at least one thread here that addresses this problem and seeks to improve on existing Blue Ray players. What a challenge. It would be so easy, if the original manufacturer would put in the 'improvements' initially, but until they are 'convinced' by the number of after release 'modifiers' and constructive criticism by audiophiles that they have not completely done their audio circuitry to the same quality as their video, they will always be 'nagged' that they are not doing their job to the best possible. This is my position at the moment, from listening and looking at the actual audio circuits. Let the 'fur' fly! '-)