Vinyl.....Pffffft.
My A system is now the best sound I have heard or lived with.
This system has really nicely precise imaging and placement, lows that go low enough and highs that go out past my hearing and is essentially distortionless.
Importantly, and this is very important to me, this system does not magnify recording distortions, and equally if not more importantly does not 'gloss over' recording distortions.
IOW, if there is dirt in the recording this dirt is presented as matter of fact and does not intrude.
Further, transients are reproduced faithfully without embellishment or diminishment.
Questionable eq'ing is presented as matter of fact and does not destroy the musical intent of the recording.
Likewise tape hiss/environmental noise is presented as just an incidental element in the recording and does not intrude nor mask.
So, what I am saying is this system just gets out of the way and reproduces music and production values as was intended without adding or subtracting, and there is no sense of two loudspeakers and instead 3D sound throughout the house (including the kitchen).
There is one 'gotcha' in this equation, and that is because this system reproduces so accurately, acoustic polarity is perfectly revealed.
Vocals in particular make or break replay reality according to polarity.
To this end I have installed Foobar2000 VST Wrapper which includes polarity switcher plugin in digital domain which is the only proper way to select acoustic polarity.
I can only snigger when I read arguments against audibility of acoustic polarity.
These arguments merely inform me that the listeners system has problems and is not up to the task of reproducing accurately, or even worse that the listener possesses cloth ears.
So, in answer to the OP's question, yes I have a digital based system that far and away satisfies me perfectly (at last....finally after 30 years of exploration/experimenting), and the best vinyl that I have heard does not come close by a country mile.
Yes vinyl can be fun, but to me vinyl is a facsimile and burdened by far too many audibly intrusive problems/distortions that can give pleasure but are ultimately not realistic when compared to a properly working digital system.
There is a spoiler here, and that is that I am using some very special (unique and proprietary) tricks to achieve the sound quality that I describe from relatively inexpensive off the shelf equipment with no modifications to electronic circuitry....this lack of circuit mods is entirely deliberate.
My current A system is an exercise in what can be achieved with reasonably typical gear, and the fun part is that outstandingly good/real sound can be had for little cost....less than $1k including netbook.
Vinyl is enjoying a comeback of sorts, but ultimately will be proven to be a 'hipster' fad.
Dan.
I'm with Frank on this one.
My A system is now the best sound I have heard or lived with.
This system has really nicely precise imaging and placement, lows that go low enough and highs that go out past my hearing and is essentially distortionless.
Importantly, and this is very important to me, this system does not magnify recording distortions, and equally if not more importantly does not 'gloss over' recording distortions.
IOW, if there is dirt in the recording this dirt is presented as matter of fact and does not intrude.
Further, transients are reproduced faithfully without embellishment or diminishment.
Questionable eq'ing is presented as matter of fact and does not destroy the musical intent of the recording.
Likewise tape hiss/environmental noise is presented as just an incidental element in the recording and does not intrude nor mask.
So, what I am saying is this system just gets out of the way and reproduces music and production values as was intended without adding or subtracting, and there is no sense of two loudspeakers and instead 3D sound throughout the house (including the kitchen).
There is one 'gotcha' in this equation, and that is because this system reproduces so accurately, acoustic polarity is perfectly revealed.
Vocals in particular make or break replay reality according to polarity.
To this end I have installed Foobar2000 VST Wrapper which includes polarity switcher plugin in digital domain which is the only proper way to select acoustic polarity.
I can only snigger when I read arguments against audibility of acoustic polarity.
These arguments merely inform me that the listeners system has problems and is not up to the task of reproducing accurately, or even worse that the listener possesses cloth ears.
So, in answer to the OP's question, yes I have a digital based system that far and away satisfies me perfectly (at last....finally after 30 years of exploration/experimenting), and the best vinyl that I have heard does not come close by a country mile.
Yes vinyl can be fun, but to me vinyl is a facsimile and burdened by far too many audibly intrusive problems/distortions that can give pleasure but are ultimately not realistic when compared to a properly working digital system.
There is a spoiler here, and that is that I am using some very special (unique and proprietary) tricks to achieve the sound quality that I describe from relatively inexpensive off the shelf equipment with no modifications to electronic circuitry....this lack of circuit mods is entirely deliberate.
My current A system is an exercise in what can be achieved with reasonably typical gear, and the fun part is that outstandingly good/real sound can be had for little cost....less than $1k including netbook.
Vinyl is enjoying a comeback of sorts, but ultimately will be proven to be a 'hipster' fad.
Dan.
That can be explained away by bias as well. The fact of the matter is that without control of bias, no results can be trusted.
The nature of the system is far less important than your underlying state of mind. I only use grumpy and tense as an example. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes not.
The point here is: It's the same system! No changes have been made to the system whatsoever....
The only thing that has changed is the listener.
Nope.
If you are getting these variable reactions your system is not up to par.
I have been down the same track with sub optimal systems in the past.
Properly good gear always sounds good.
Dan.
Sounds like this magical "bias" can explain away everything that doesn't meet your approval ... 😛, 😉
I'm afraid that musical reproduction is intended to appeal to the senses - and that is the only arbiter that counts - if HP and AP are your gods of goodness, then let the machines take all the available listening seats - they'll never complain, no matter what 🙂.
Why it sounds different is because one has more, or less, energy and tolerance for dealing with the audible deficiencies. With wine one has more tolerance, if feeling good then there's plenty of energy to put extra mental filtering into, unconsciously, separating the music from the detritus.
What I use as a technique for quickly unearthing subtle problems is to ask the person demonstrating a system to wind up the volume, and then I deliberately engage in serious conversation with him or someone else - I'm intentionally taking my attention from the audio sound. If I rapidly feel stressed, have an urge to go up and down the volume that's a giveaway: the system is injecting too much garbage into the air, and my brain is overloading trying to talk, and filter out the "badness" from the "background" playback.
Good point and one I have observed.
Good sound can be loud and verbal communication is easy, bad sound and shouting is the outcome.
Dan.
Yep, happens all the time - also called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect.
Masking, OTOH, is when the filtering fails, there's not enough brain HP to get the job done - and this appears to be what happens, in a positive sense, with "convincing" audio reproduction.
Take a look at the attached printscreen of a AVI file played on Media Player Classic, where you CAN see the error on the image. On Windows Media Player, the image is clearer and the sound is also clearer. But obviously, Billshurv and may be you, CANNOT possibly hear the difference in the audio, so I show you the image where you CAN see the issue.
One important point I'm trying to make with above paragraph is: When a software interpreter cannot handle an "instruction" it has the option to "abort" the process or simply "resume with errors". It is this "resume with errors" that makes output is possible, but with non-standard quality!
Now let's look at how a file such as MP3 is read by a software, processed and output through the AUDIO line out... to see where issues may intrude...
(I mentioned "small program size" just so you can have a program which most probably different with WMP. Different in term of priority to quality).
When you create a software, you NEVER write the codes for everything. You may use libraries, and then you will also use software provided by Operating System and hardware... And there are many of this libraries, with different "quality"...
(1) Let's start with DECODING of the input to the software, e.g an *.MP3
*.MP3 is created where "headers" are given so any programmer can decode it. As a programmer, it is UP TO ME what to do with the headers! The more complex the headers, the harder for me to decode it with quality in mind. A simple-headed MP3 may sound equally good with various software, but a complex one might not. For example, I have to decide what to do with the channel mode information, or non-constant bitrate, etc., or even to ignore if the file says that it is copyrighted!
In case of a "broken" frame, I can replace with "empty bits" or resume with the next frame.
The result of the decoding, say in PCM format, can be different, but it is not the end of the process.
(2) Handling of the sound data to Soundcard through API.
For each soundcard, there are many APIs that can work with them. Not all have the same "quality". The soundcard also needs a driver (it's a software) to communicate with OS (it's also a software). The OS also needs other drivers to communicate with whole computer (multi-threading, memory allocation, etc.).
Of course, this stage will be equally experienced by any PCM output regardless of the software used to decode it. But the nature of the decoded data, in conjunction with selected post processing, may affect, or determine if differences will be audible or not.
Attachments
I think its that heterodyne amplifier that is the problem Houston
You need a squelch-button to fix it
You need a squelch-button to fix it
Jay,
I have over 30 years of programming experience. Including language design, embedded systems, RT systems, databases, communications, device drivers, mathematical modelling.... from no OS to UNIX and many others....
The complexity of the program is irrelevant. It is only the correctness of the program that matters. You seem to be suggesting that foobar et. al. are so broken that the exception processing overwhelms the correct handling of the input data stream.
In a word: No.
I have over 30 years of programming experience. Including language design, embedded systems, RT systems, databases, communications, device drivers, mathematical modelling.... from no OS to UNIX and many others....
The complexity of the program is irrelevant. It is only the correctness of the program that matters. You seem to be suggesting that foobar et. al. are so broken that the exception processing overwhelms the correct handling of the input data stream.
In a word: No.
GIGO, BigE. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I don't know how you interpret that I'm suggesting that Foobar is so broken when what I have said is that I felt Foobar is more accurate than others.
And remember the OPTIONS I have talked about? When I played a software, and "compare" it to another, did I ensure that every software has the same option setting?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.