Audio Research Ref: CD8

Hi Chadeffect, not sure if you can be serious about the cd 7's "imaging". In my experience 90% of "imaging" results from room interactions and setup. 90% of the remaining 10% comes from the speakers. I think you might legitimately claim that the cd 7's dac setup (no upsampling) and tube output stage lacks ultimate detail/clarity. This may or may not be a good thing depending on ones system or listening preferences. Tubes for example tend to limit sibilance ( a microphone artifact)and this is a good thing. Even APL's wo2 after gaining detail with a zillion dac's uses a tube output stage. My guess is that all the detail in the world just didn't sound quite right without it. Upsampling or over sampling can be a good thing if done well. Generalizations about cd players doesn't make much sense to me. IMHO differences are actually pretty small ( compared to speakers, preamps, and rooms/setups)and come down mostly to the output stages. No offense intended. Just my own biased opinion - Jim
jim

Chad, O.K. I think you and I use 'imaging' differently. I refer to the ability to properly and solidly place an sound in space. What you call imaging I call resolution or detail. This ability does vary somewhat from player to player. I have been "exposed" to it and I think I just value it less than some people do. It is important but even with cost no object players ( nwo2) with tons of it "it" still needs a good output stage to create an enjoyable listening experience. I'm glad you point out the need to judge based on better recordings. As a 50's - 60's jazz nut it rare for me to warm up to modern protools , overly compressed recordings. It's now a contest to make the hottest ( loudest) recordings which to me all sound like sh#t. To me there is no way to judge anything based on them. Enjoy - Jim

Chad, I appreciate your response. Yes protools is not the enemy per se. My wife at one point was studying studio production and we have several friends who do it for a living. All of them have protools and some of them still have the old analog stuff and while I can't explain why it sounds better to my ears it does. Even if originally recorded via analog and then transferred to cd. Bill Evans/Tony Bennett is a good example. Of course it may have to do with the much greater care that engineers used to take. It might be all in my head. I don't know. Analytically you should be dead on correct about all the old patch bays etc. However, and this maybe where you and I "hear" differently, I love all the nooks and crannies of imperfection. Higher sample rates and by extension upsampling SHOULD improve sound. But does it ? What are you 'filling' in with ? Semi-relatedly vocal pitch correction absolutely kills me. Averaging to where a note 'should' be robs the singer of their uniqueness. WRT dynamic range compression of course it IS necessary for cd recording and can be used to improve sound by sustaining notes etc. Most people, however, now record for playback hardware which doesn't have the capability of 'dynamic range expansion' and/or software which uses lossy compression so it's always hot hot hot. Oh well, I've finished rambling - Jim

ARC does not believe in upsampling.

Good to see you like it weiserb. I knew you would. - Jim