I am sure that PMC had a tie in with Bryston at some point and recommended their amplifiers.
http://www.whathifi.com/news/bristol-show-2013-pmc-shows-ps25k-bb5-se-speakers you can see the brystons here in their show demo pic.
http://www.whathifi.com/news/bristol-show-2013-pmc-shows-ps25k-bb5-se-speakers you can see the brystons here in their show demo pic.
There are many equally proficient amplifiers well engineered amplifiers out there. Nothing 'special' about the brystons from a performance aspect. But I believe their warranty and repair is exceedingly good.
I assume you have read about the benchmark AHB2 to match your dac?
I assume you have read about the benchmark AHB2 to match your dac?
I have read about AHB2, and would be very interested to try one. Don't know how much I would like it until then, but it does have impressive specs.
I am following this thread with great interest. I just want to point out the following:
Playing in the home of a symphony orchestra is much more difficult than a jazz trio, regardless of the reproduction system we have, because it is impossible that we can not even approach the physical dimensions of a concert hall.
The same applies for a reproduction that seeks to emulate the sound heard by the sound engineer. We would need an exactly treated room, in addition to the same monitoring system (console, amplifiers, processors, bafles, etc.)
Summarizing. Even with the most sophisticated sound reproduction system, what we achieve will always be approximations, some very close, some very far from reality, but the environment manipulates sound waves in a particular and fundamental way, this is impossible to copy.
Playing in the home of a symphony orchestra is much more difficult than a jazz trio, regardless of the reproduction system we have, because it is impossible that we can not even approach the physical dimensions of a concert hall.
The same applies for a reproduction that seeks to emulate the sound heard by the sound engineer. We would need an exactly treated room, in addition to the same monitoring system (console, amplifiers, processors, bafles, etc.)
Summarizing. Even with the most sophisticated sound reproduction system, what we achieve will always be approximations, some very close, some very far from reality, but the environment manipulates sound waves in a particular and fundamental way, this is impossible to copy.
I am now trying to find DAC1 HDR at a price I can afford, but no luck so far. 🙁
Nice one, thanks a lot. Always struggling with english/american comma setting.....
You would need to clone the ears and brain as well. Like finger prints every ear is different in shape, why would the same thing sound the same to two different people. If my brother recognizes my mother's voice and I do too - does not mean that when I hear what he hears that I will still recognize her voice.
Therefore I maintain hi-fi is about the accuracy of replay equipment between the source and the speaker. My reason is that the environment, shape of an ear state of the mind, background noise, air pressure all plays a role that makes the sound different from the original. What we then do is to find speakers and room treatments to try and get back to the original acoustics that we assume the engineer had captured.
Unfortunately, the reference from which the source is made existed only once and was heard in real time by only a few with no particularly good memory.
Last edited:
You keep dragging in preference. Preference is not the issue! People were not asked what they prefer (in the hi-fi tests); they were asked whether what they were hearing was the real thing or a recording. Why do I need to keep repeating myself?Jakob2 said:
The standard, if it exists, does not define the meaning. On the contrary, it is the meaning which must lead to any standard. To take distortion as an example, we cannot define hi-fi to be 0.5% - that would be doing exactly what some audiophiles suspect we have done. No, we define hi-fi as high fidelity sound reproduction and then we discover through careful listening tests that, say, the distortion has to be below 0.5% for this to be possible for most people. That does not rule out the possibility that in future some even better tests may show that we actually need 0.2%. On the other hand, 0.5% as the electrical aim would be known to be better than many people need. Having found that 0.5% is needed for most people, there may then be economic reasons to declare that only equipment which can reach this standard can describe itself as hi-fi. There are EU standards for chocolate; they do not define what chocolate is, but say that anything failing the standard cannot call itself chocolate on the package.
Here I am repeating myself again. This is getting very tedious.
If I had the citations to hand I would give them.
Yes, damn you! Although to be fair I have recently borrowed a DAC3 and rather liked it. But out of my reach, sadly,
.
No. Each person's experience is private to them, but it should be based in the same sound in the air.Nico Ras said:
The aim of hi-fi is not that something sounds the same to two different people, but that two different people can agree that it sounds like the real thing. Note that the real thing will sound different to the two people, but the reproduction will sound similarly different too.
That is why we need listening tests to establish how good the equipment needs to be. Having done this, we don't need to repeat these for every item of music released or every item of equipment; we simply ensure that the equipment meets the required spec. From time to time we will wish to revisit the tests, and perhaps adjust the spec.
I believe you are mistaken there. The replay illusion (which is what it is) doesn't work the same for everyone. There are some who hear 2 channel as just that; 2 channels. Agreed most of us do hear stereo, but to what degree? Are you saying that there is no variation in our level of acceptance of this? Or that it is statistically irrelevant? Damn those statistics! 😡
- Status
- Not open for further replies.