Not wasting my time on new Digital

sony has to figure out another way to generate a royalty now that their cd patent has run out. this was the reason for sacd,which was a flop. i thought there was alot of issues with cd's myself unitl i had aberdeen components mod my tact millenium mk3 and a northstar 192 transport. this transport can be used as 16/44.1 or upsampled at 24/96. the 24/96 works toghether with the dac's in the tact amp and sounds the best to these ears. the mod aberdeen accomplished is the best digital i have heard since digital came out. i am listening to many cd's that i deemed unlistenable. aberdeen components has overcome the many complaints we all have had with digital. when i heard the amp and transport for the first time. i was shocked at how good digital can really sound.a previous mod to my tact amp sounded lifeless and broken compared to what i am hearing now. i have had people over and asked how my cd's can sound so much better than what they have at home. it was also good to hear after the mod, the company proclaim the tact millenium mk3 amp the best sounding amp they ever heard. it should be a test piece for the rest to be compared against. i know everyone has heard these statements before, but the aberdeen components mod is THE REAL DEAL !!!! this is not some gimicky mod that you dont know what you are getting. you can call them and they will be glad to tell you what and why what they do works. their email is www.sales@aberdeencomponents.com

D_Edwards: My center channel is a hold over from my previous mains. It's a Vienna Acoustics Maestro or Theatro. I don't recall. It's a good sized center channel, but will be replaced at some point to match my mains. My LFE went out on my receiver recently, Yamaha RXV-995 so its a good enough excuse to replace it and try something along the lines of what you suggested. Like I stated earlier, I'd love to be able to cut down to one set of gear that handles music and HT well. My listening space is my living room right now. I'm hoping to put the house up for sale in the next month or two. Next place will have a basement, which translates to "I can do what I want down there". I don't plan to make any drastic changes in my current space as the room already has too many problems. When I'm ready, I'll shoot you an email for advice. Thanks.

I only wish Viridian was totally on target with his assesment. However the numbers do not support his views.

Before CBS/Columbia made the hugh committment to jump into the then new CD technology, we formed focus groups in several parts of the country to evaluate consumer trend in this medium. Would they pay the $800.00 for the entry level player? Would they pay near twice the price for the software? Would they buy titles they already have in LP or Cassette ? The list goes on, but that was crux of what needed to be evaluated. The results from these focus groups was an overwhelming resounding YES!!! So armed with that the plunge was taken.

Guess what? Did not happen in the numbers expected, in fact nowhere even close. Wish the hell it did, would have saved a ton of jobs. Also resistance at the retail level was another area encountered, that was not foreseen. Retailers had to regear themselves to accomodate this new medium. All of this held true for Capitol and RCA as well.

Even new releases in both LP and Cassette and the newer CD format, the LP contiuned to outsell the CD by a far margin until about late 1988 some seven years after the introduction of the CD Players and by that time the price of CD Players had fallen dramatically, but prices on CD software remained much the same.Software prices remained high losses had to be recovered from previous years, and have remained high since.

Comparing DVD Video to Music CD is an apple to oranges comparison. Music CDs are bought individually and are added to ones library. On the other hand DVD Video is a different animal. If it was not for the vast majority of rental libraries such as Blockbuster and the like the DVD Video market would near collapse under its own weight.

Case in point in my own vast collection I have precisely three CDs that I already have on the LP format. If I posses it in LP or Cassette, I see zero reason to add the same title in CD format. And to this day not everything has been transferred to CD. Same holds true for the DVD Video format.

We will see if Sony with Blue Ray can weather a 7 year storm in this day and time. However thier recent debacle with SACD and DVD-A proves otherwise. The Corporate environment has changed dramatically in recent years, no longer will Corporations pour resources into a medium that show a poor return. Now its all about the numbers, there are no more visionaries heading these Corporations now. And in the final analysis it is the end consumer that ends up with an obsolete purchase.

Both CD and DVD offered advantages to consumers that made them a no-brainer to adopt once software became plentiful and hardware prices dropped. With the new DVD formats, the advantages are clearly less but they are more compelling than just "better sound". Through mainstream systems, the better sound of SACD and DVD-A was not better enough. But I think the better picture of the HD DVD formats (on HD displays) will be better enough, and combined with the greater capacity of the discs, you have something that will move consumers to upgrade. And the barriers to adoption are fairly low. The new players will play old DVDs, correct? So you won't replace your old collection necessarily, but you may be motivated to get a new DVD player by the prospect of buying (or renting) an entire season of Deadwood on a single disc.

The improved PQ of 1080p over DVD's current 480p is pretty obvious and most of us who have HD displays, even if not 1080p, will go for an HD player as soon as Netflix starts offering the formats on a good number of new or interesting older releases. Netflix, along with Blockbuster, has some power in how this plays out (which formats do they offer?). The studios probably have more power.

Blu-ray at least promises interactivity, and I imagine that what this really means is you'll be encouraged to buy things directly while watching content. That's a big enough carrot to drive development of some pretty clever promotions, which may suck consumers in.

The next generation of broadband into the home is a wildcard here if HD on-demand begins to materialize.

For what it is worth. Once again Sony wants to re-package and re-sell their existing library. This marketing strategy always fails. No one with any common sense, no matter how good Blue Ray or HD DVD may or may not be, is going to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to re-populate what they already own in an existing format.

If Blue Ray or HD DVD is a superior process, it will have to very right straight out of the box and have such a dramatic impact to make all other digital forms obsolete immediately. Thats an almost impossible task, due to the fact that costs at the retail level cannot exceed the magic $399.00 for a launch of a new format player. Software has to be priced very near current levels. At present all I see is a lot of red ink to be overcome. And for the consumer another format to deal with, that has all the potential of another SACD or DVD-A demise, that leaves consumers with outdated formats, that consumers paid far to much for. Till proven different, I believe this to be another fad, with zero substance.

There is a need for a new digital system to raise the bar, that we have had since 1982, but major breakthroughs do not occur often and are not priced at entry level consumer gear in the initial launch. In 1982 I paid a very hefty price for a first generation CD Player and the first CD discs were very expensive, when compared to the analog LP of the same period.

With Blue Ray and HD DVD I do not see that happening. These new operating systems will have to hit the decks running and the return on investment to Sony will have to be swift. Entry level consumer electronic products, due to their mass market nature, will not have the build, parts, or reliability quality to ensure consumer confidence after the launch.

But, I am always ready to be impressed beyond my wildest expectations, which happens all to infrequently and after 48 years in this hobby business, major breakthroughs I can count on the fingers of one hand. I spent a lot of years at CBS/Columbia and well remember the Quad disaster of 1975. There is not a better mouse trap, only major break throughs that deliver the promise, and that technology is expensive to R&D and deliver to the market place.

While it's not clear whether HD DVD or Blu-ray will win out, one of them surely will. Because unlike SACD and DVD-A, these new formats have compelling benefits for the mass market.

And to top all of this off, now we have Blue Ray technology coming to the forefront from the same wonderful people that gave us SACD and DVD A. I absolutely refuse to invest in this, till it is totally proven. We all know the current fiasco regarding SACD and DVD-A. Please Sony, enough is enough.

And to D-edwards, yep I am an aging baby boomer. Been in this hobby/business since 1957, owned and sold more gear that you can possibly fathom. I do take offense as being dismissed as nothing more than a relic.

Got into digital the day it hit the streets. In fact when I purchased the first CD Player, there was only 25 CD titles in the Schwanns Catalog. Digital has its place as does analog. Also have had a very expensive Lexicon HT system. Great for movies, total dreck for music.

For all the prowess that Digital provides, when it comes to accurate musical reproduction, it is only of late, that the promise of digital is coming to light, but the jury is still out for me. It takes a damn expensive digital player to get music,not movies, to sound correct.

Hey Snipes,

Sorry for the lag time, let me answer your questions first;

"What genre of music do you primarily listen to?" It easier to describe what I don't listen too, I don't listen to Brubeck, Davis, DeMeola (GRP) type jazz, Very little country, No gangsta rap, and bagpipes.

But everything else is fair game,

"I believe you said you were in the north east someplace"
Baltimore/ Reading PA

"I'm very surprised more people haven't jumped in on the thread."

Everything I've written in this thread I have been writing on various boards for the last 7-8 years, I am not surprised.

Normally this would have turned into a pissing contest by now.

Most people have so little quality experience with surround it is dismissed not something to fight about.

"The ATC's look interesting as well, I bet the really do Rock and HT well."

The ATC's do everything well, large classical being where they can really seperate themselves with that midrange from most audiophile speakers. But there are few speakers that I can think of that can play Megadeth to Norah Jones with the same veracity and quality of two very different types of "rock/pop" music.

DAVE,

no special discs required, just setup your surround as it is now. I'm looking for someone with a system that I can help over the phone get their system correct. (snipes same for you) No takers yet. What center channel do you have?

D Edwards,thanks for the details thats the type of info I was looking for. Like quite a few people on this forum, I have a combo 2 ch. / HT setup. If I could pare down the equipment to one set AND improve the music experience that would be great. I'm in Atlanta, I believe you said you were in the north east someplace. If I know ahead of time I'm coming up that way I'll get a hold of you. What genre of music do you primarily listen to? Also, I'm very surprised more people haven't jumped in on the thread, I get a feeling quite a few are lurking around. Normally this would have turned into a pissing contest by now. Thanks for the inspiration. The ATC's look interesting as well, I bet the really do Rock and HT well.

D edwards

I played around with a SS music system... Sony XA-777es sacd player...Krell amps, Apogee speakers. Good SS software was fairly limited at the time (a couple years ago).

Another SS system (I still have this one)...Pioneer 563A sacd/Dvd-Audio player...Omkyo amps, VMPS speakers. This system has been used strictly for hometheater...I guess I should order some disc's and give this system a listen playing music?...It's been a while.

Dave

No, snipes, I just assumed you hadn't heard it that is all.

And my writing meant to imply that you're welcome to come see/ hear anytime and ask more questions. It was to be a friendly invitation, not a desuasion or persuasion.

Just bad writing :(

Ask away,

Referring to the system you can link too.

My setup is very linear +/- 1.5dB 200-20khz, all 6 speaker are exactly the same, 2 subs with eq, +/- 3db 20hz to 200hz all satellites are setup at the same height except the center, this is for demo purposes only. As people new to the surround format always say they can here the sound directly out of the center channel, even when I'm (tricking them) only playing two channels. :)

You want this kind of flat accurate speaker for surround, because the surround algorithms do diffuse the sense of detail slightly and having a speaker that might be "bright" or "too exact" for normal listening will be great for surround.

The best music format for our purposes is Trifield, Dolby Prologic II is a godsend for many manufacturers giving them access to a very coloration free surround mode.

The rest are to colored to be options.

note on my center channel;

By lowering the speaker a few inches it fully seperates the center sound from the center channel as the voices image above the speaker, disconnecting two strong visual cues. Normally all speakers at the same height.

Cambridge Audio Receiver is very good, the introduction of two ex-TAG McLaren engineers is paying big dividends. When it comes to buying the right equipment for surround, there is a great deal of info to consider. So to keep my posts from being outrageously long, email me because when you say the wrong thing about the right product the noise online gets to be problematic and distracting.

I leave you with one last thought.

A Home Theater will not necessarily make a great music surround system

But a music surround system makes for a great Home Theater.

I'm not sure that digital is a waste of time without multichannel, but it is true that MC is the greatest factor for improvement over analog (for us poor guys who don't have $80,000 LP playback gear). In particular, for someone who will not install multichannel equipment, I doubt that SACD or DVDA is a big upgrade over CD.

I have many 2-channel discs and LPs, and have experimented with many of the matrix systems that can derive multichannel from a stereo source. Almost always I find the result problematical. There is a compromise however, three (not five) channel, and there is a product (SST Trinaural Processor) that "Blows Away" (sorry about that) all the other systems. You can read my review here or at the Imperii Audio website. Kal also had a favorable review in our favorite rag.

D, If you read my post and assumed that I was a disbeliever, than you misinterpreted me. I'm curious and you have piqued my interest. I'm intrigued by your statements and would like to hear more about your setup. How many speakers, what the various surround modes do to the mix, what other type of configuration settings did you do with regards to the processor, etc? So far what I've gathered from your posts is that the vast majority of people aren't listening to digital properly. OK, but can you give us specifics on your setup. Are there component do's and don't? I'm almost interpreting your statements to imply any properly setup HT music system in a dedicated room that has been acoustically treated is the ticket. All one has to do is pick the proper surround mode.
Please shed some light.

Thanks

Hey Snipes,

A quik answer, YES!!! My very budget surround system linked in my audiogon info, has "blown away" 2 channel systems that cost more. I put blown away in quotes because that is the same quote used by four different people after hearing the system listed recently. And trust me they were in the same state of disbelief you're feeling now when they said it. I don't expect you to believe me anyway...just come on by and hear for yourself anytime.

Now what I find amusing is this is a very entry level system with a very nice receiver and some speakers I build myself. What do you think a Meridian 861 and ATC's would sound like compared to two channel systems? I know what J Gordon thinks.

And YES, that "blown away" comment was addressing the systems ability to playback redbook 2 channel cd's in a limited PLII format as you would expect to hear them from a two channels system. All voices and instruments in a wide deep front soundstage, but with a naturalness you might just begin to find in the Meitner products with two channels. But maybe not.

D1 is a good choice, anything Meridian makes is the best for music, they give you so much control I can mimic other two channel and multi channel systems. But not any processor will do. Believe it or not, not all surround processors are competent. Some leave out critical adjustments that cripple the ability of the processor to do music well. Setup flexibility and EQ is very critical.

I'd like to hear more from D_Edwards on the specifics of his setup and how we can learn to take advantage of what digital offers. His comments were refreshing, whether right or wrong. I can live with my cd's being crunched and massaged through the various digital algorithms that the various surround sound modes offer. After reading his statements I started looking at processor offerings in the 4-5K range and it seems there is are quite a few new surround modes since I bought my receiver 7 years ago. PLII, tri-field, etc. and it seems that every manufacturer has their own proprietary 2-channel mix mode designed for CD's. I'm curious as to what they are trying to accomplish with these modes though. Are they simply trying to simulate what a good 2-channel system can do with sound imaging, depth, etc? I've heard more than one 2-channel setup that when done in a room that has been treated, fills the entire room. Again, his comments were a refreshing change from the usual, is this amp, better than that one, etc. Digital is here to stay and he brings some fresh assumptions. Especially for those of us that don't listen to audiophile grade recording. Hey if you can clean up the sound and make it more enjoyable, I'm all for it.
I've got half a mind to pick up an Anthem D1 and give it a whirl. My receiver is on the fritz as it is.

Viridian...Your question, "Where, as you assert, did I say that sounds 10 to 20db below what is audible are things that you should "care" about?" is one that I cannot answer because the posting has been (conveniently) deleted.

Thanks for the link. Interesting, but I have seen it before.

In my multichannel system (5 channels contributing noise) I never hear noise with digital sources. With LPs, quiet passages almost always have enough audible noise to bother me. (Perhaps I am more sensitive to this than you are). My spectrum analyser clearly shows why this is so.

I have no special record cleaning equipment, and I am talking about ordinary LPs: not special audiophile editions. While the noise floor of the LP system is pretty well defined by the technology, the maximum signal can be anything that the recording engineer thinks his customers' cartridges can track. Most LPs intended for the general public have been compressed and peak-limited so that Joe sixpack can play them.

By the way, I think that dynamic range is not the most important parameter. Sometimes I find that quiet passages, even without noise, are difficult to hear unless the volume is cranked up so much that the loud passages are ear-splitting. Too much of a good thing.

Viridian: I am loathe to insert myself into the middle of this one, but I can't make sense of your statements

"...analog, both tape and LP, has greater dynamic range than redbook CD. Sounds can be heard between ten and twenty db beneath the noise floor on analog. Digital media simply throw away all information below the least significant bit"

"in analog, not digital, replay, sounds can be heard 10db to 20db into the noise floor and this leads to analog replay having a greater dynamic range than redbook CD"

Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, the assertion about audibility below the noise floor with analog, I can't see any connection between that supposed fact, and drawing the conclusion that therefore digital must have less dynamic range. Even if the stipulation about audibility is true, it seems to me the comparison would be wholly dependent on where the analog noise floor actually falls in relation to the bit-depth of a particular digital format. If, for instance, an analog format has a noise floor 20dB higher than the LSB of a digital format, then they should have equal dynamic range by your argument. But even so, taking the noise floor of the analog into account, the digital should have superior low-level resolution.

Personally, I'm not sure that any of this stuff actually has much to do with the perception of 'dynamic' sound (or whether dynamics has anything to do with D_Edwards contention about digital and multichannel, for that matter). But regardless, your inference does seem like a non-sequitor to me.

Eldartford,

Ditto! I was about to say the same thing.

The problem starts with the recordings. I have witnessed A-B tests between a SOTA ($60K+) vinyl setup and certain Digital only to find out that, with the same record title, some sound better on the Digital and some better on the Vinyl.

Believe or not!

Regards,
Alex

Drubin: What i was saying is that electronic componentry has a higher level of time delay and signal smearing than even just a reasonably well designed piece of cabling. Sean
>

Viridian...Please explain why I should care about sounds that are ten to twenty dB softer than what is audible.

Unlike many sonic characteristics that are near to the heart of audiophiles, dynamic range is very easy to measure. Have you ever actually done this?

Viridian...I have a test CD (put out by Dennon) that has a track with a tone having amplitude of one LSB. It is completely inaudible, although my spectrum analyser, looking at the electrical signal, picks it up so I know it is there. I don't much care what might lie ten to twenty dB lower.

Oh, and that is a 16 bit CD. DVDs are 256 times better.

The recording happens in a space, that space unless anechoic will reflect and reinforce sound creating a tone, that tone is captured onto the recording. This is inescapable, that somewhat unimportant information is not as damaging to analog sound because it simply doesn't have the S/N ratio and the linear performance, so that medium masks effectively this information. The CD does not mask this information and two channel simply crushes that noise, ambiance and room tone back on top of the soundstage. Think of live recordings where all the people are clapping in a compressed area in front of you. That is not correct, that is simply the standard. Surround expands and sorts this off subject sound and places it properly in a soundfield.

Very thought provoking.

Quadraphonic on 4 track tape like all types of recordings had good, and bad. I've heard some very good Quadraphonic recordings. The limitation of Quad was more at the end user/retail interface and the LP. Which has proven to be a weak surround source.

There is a reason companies invested heavily in Quad sound, there are intrinsic advantages to surround sound and how human respond to it. That research was done in the the 40's 50's.

So I would imagine that the very best Quad recordings would be satisfactory versus todays digital surround like PLII and Trifield. Computing power is beyond the imagination of people just 20 years ago let alone 40.

And this is the key to making surround a viable argument. The technology for it has matured and is available inexpensively. Digital can be edited and manipulated with very little tainting to the original information.

The key to digital is to jump in and embrace all its benefits. EQ, compression, room correction etc. Unlike analog, digital can be manipulated very effectively, because its ones and zeroes. A weakness that becomes a strength.

Now please note that digital can still be improved but the potential is being utilized and improvements are being made as computing power increases and that power becomes cheaper.

Response to Mr. Tennis; (this is part of that promised email)

MRT"if one accepts the premise that live unamplified music is a valid reference, the experience of listening to live music is binaural."

"This is the classic and somewhat shortsited vision of how a human hears and more importantly how the microphones are setup. The recording happens in a space, that space unless anechoic will reflect and reinforce sound creating a tone, that tone is captured onto the recording. This is inescapable, that somewhat unimportant information is not as damaging to analog sound because it simply doesn't have the S/N ratio and the linear performance, so that medium masks effectively this information. The CD does not mask this information and two channel simply crushes that noise, ambiance and room tone back on top of the soundstage. Think of live recordings where all the people are clapping in a compressed area in front of you. That is not correct, that is simply the standard. Surround expands and sorts this off subject sound and places it properly in a soundfield.

MRT "I don't remember hearing the sound of a piano behind my head when attending a piano recital, in a large hall."

Then you weren't listening, the Piano likely filled the room with sound as if it was poured into the room, Think about it, room likely pulsed with the Piano's output, not that your hearing the primary key strike from behind but you were emmersed in sound....surround sound. Binaural gives us surround sound hearing not two channel hearing.
Think about it.

MRT "also, what does the representation of timbral accuracy have to do with the number of channels."

If there is audible "garbage" (artificial reverb, room tone and information, crowd noise) on the recording like I hear with CD (please note the garbage is not digititis, its simply unavoidable non subject noise collected by the microphones) this when crushed back onto the subject of recording can shift the entire spectral balance of the recording.

MRT "it is possible to create realistic timbre with one quad esl."

Not with a stereo digital recording it is not, one speaker will suffer the same fate as two, even three. You're not addressing the problem and simply creating a "flaw" that does not exist and accepting it as a medium problem, when infact I assert our playabck systems are what's incorrect. This is the point I make, digital is misunderstood.

MRT "now, back to the issue of digital. a good source is a good source, whether it is analog or digital."

So how do determine a good source? what objective repeatable solution do you have so we can all buy good sources? See this is the blindeness that has affected audio and has everyone chassing around with no direction. There is no good digital source for two channels, the better it gets the more the sound moves away from satisfying. We can't keep guessing, too many products, too expensive. We should know, but we don't.

MRT. "close your eyes and decide whether a recording of a piano, e.g., sounds like a real piano, to what ever degree."

The old days were good days when you there was only a few products that could do this. Now many many systems can do this pretty well, you can't run what you've brung anymore. Because room acoustics and component interaction all now matter a great deal. Because we all have great systems by 1980 standards, but its 2007, and to be great takes more than some demo at a store. That information has to translate to the home system.

MRT. "the source is much more important than the stereo equipment."

Which without getting into great detail is why I like surround, because the surround processor is the source where the DtoA happens. Giving me a great deal of control of the final sound. To me speakers are the gate keeper then the source.

MRT. "there are many decent examples of vintage (pre 1990) digital gear and some examples of decent current digital gear."

People don't want to spend $50K on decent

Actually right now except for audiophile brands that edit the sound there are many excellent digital products. People playing records are using a 2nd rate source in a proper setup. There's no argument except we "enjoy" the LP's more for LP's to be considered competition with CD. We need to find the system that allows us to enjoy digital more.

MRT. "The problem with today's high resolution components, is that they expose the flaws of recordings to a greater degree than some of the older components with less resolution."

Yes, but what if we could fix the "flaws" and remove them and turn them into positives? The pro's use awesome equipment too, and if we could minimize the "flaws" why shouldn't we? What if you were to discover that the things creating the perceived "flaws" in your two channel system become coherent waves of ambiant information and instead of hearing the piano in a glary two channel unidirectional presentation you get information that puts the Piano in the room, but not your room, the room it was recrded in. The added weight the surround information (no longer a "flaw")moves the bar for what sounds real and natural!

so pick your poison--euphonic coloration to cover up the sins of many digital recordings, or todays high resolution, less colored digital devices which are more accurate as to revealing what's on a recording.

See that's my focus, it doesn't have to be a "poison". It can be a step forward.

So, how do quadraphonic analog recordings compare to digital multichannel formats ;)

-The Devil's Advocate

Ray Kimber's Isomike recordings demonstrate how effective rear channels can be
in delivering the (binaural) experience of listening to live music. Rest assured,
no pianos will play behind you.

Sean, I'm afraid I don't understand your post at all. Can you spoon-feed it to
me?

if one accepts the premise that live unamplified music is a valid reference, the experience of listening to live music is binaural.

i don't remember hearing the sound of a piano behind my head when attending a piano recital, in a large hall.

also, what does the representation of timbral accuracy have to do with the number of channels.

it is possible to create realistic timbre with one quad esl.

now, back to the issue of digital. a good source is a good source, whether it is analog or digital.

close your eyes and decide whether a recording of a piano, e.g., sounds like a real piano, to what ever degree.

the source is much more important than the stereo equipment.

there are many decent examples of vintage (pre 1990) digital gear and some examples of decent current digital gear.

the problem with today's high resolution components, is that they expose the flaws of recordings to a greater degree than some of the older components with less resolution.

so pick your poison--euphonic coloration to cover up the sins of many digital recordings, or todays high resolution, less colored digital devices which are more accurate as to revealing what's on a recording.

D edwards makes an interesting and compelling argument. I wonder what do you think the minimum number of channels is to do digital justice?

I too have been very dissatisfied lately with some pretty expensive digital equipment. Currently I am listening to a NON-OS dac the is proving to be very enjoyable. I gave up on heavy analysis of my system some time ago and am now just looking for some engagment out of my systems' sound. This has lead me to pursue some different technologies (some old, some new).

Interesting thread.

Zaikesman,

I'm not quite sure what your post means,

Are you saying Analog LP's outperform 24 bit digital systems?

Anyway, I'm not sure its important.

If you want a cool experience that won't be a waste of your time. You should come to Baltimore and listen to the system I have posted. Bring some CD's, I'll show you something you haven't heard before, I promise!

If you're going to start worrying about the velocity of propagation in cabling, you better start looking at the Td ( Time Delay ) through each component. That will be pretty tough though as most manufacturers won't provide this type of spec, probably for good reason. Sean
>

D_edwards, what your argument boils down to is that, absent analog -- specifically vinyl -- distortions or limitations, stereo material should be played back in multichannel. Whether that's true or not, the alleged perfection of digital is beside the point.

There's a number of issues to address here but in short no one component makes for a very dynamic, revealing, involving, and 'lifelike' system. There simply are too many variables involved.

(Although if there ever were a single component that could most drastically affect a system for better or worse I'm of the opinion it is the amplifier.)

For example, if one's system did not include 'proper' line conditioning and/or one's system included speaker cables and ics that induced much time smear(as many do), most always any good or better analog source would sound more pleasing to the ear than any good or better digital source. But some might also consider this scenario as applying a band-aid to cover certain shortcomings.

That said, there are a few digital units that given the right system can match or exceed the performance of potentially any analog.

The APL-modified and Exemplar-modified ucdps certainly come to mind. Of which I am an owner of an APL-3910 and will be putting my unit up for sale shortly (only for business purposes as I'm a dealer).

But to claim after one or two experiences with 'good' digital in a given system along with potential shortcomings in a given system (we all have them) should not be considered enough conclusive evidence that digital is simply inferior.

So let me start with three questions:

1. What, if any, line conditioners are you using?

2. What speaker cables and ics are you using?

3. What amplifiers are you using?

-IMO

Tvad,

Although I don't think we are coming from the same point of view, and records are dead in my mind and simply hanging on to them as a valid current source of music is beating a dead horse no matter how good it was. They are not coming back. But they were the perfect two channel source, their technical defects became strengths with a two channel system. A perfect marriage.

Digitals strengths are made weakness's within the two channel system.

But digital is like putting a aggressive racing suspension on your daily driver. Simply cannot be dealt with in a casual fashion. Audiophiles have been forced to be consumers of high end audio, and are subject to market forces like marketing and show me magazines with revenue building reviews. Where can you get the truth? Not here.

The percieved inferiority of digital has little to do with a bad format, although Redbook CD's should be long gone by now. And please note Any format from Sony should be rejected out of habit anymore by the public. When will we learn?

A 24/96 format is so vastly superior to ANY LP system it simply cannot be dealt with the alchemist trial and error methods of audiophile past. LP's leave a great deal of "play" in the system and it is very forgiving format like a regular street suspension. Digital is 1 and 0's and that means either you have it right or you have it wrong. That's why it is so polarizing. And yes if you're wondering I am implying that people still have very little clue how to build a digital system.

Just like NASCAR, being a good driver (audiophile, music lover) and rolling your car off the pickup for the weekend isn't good enough anymore. The precision of todays system requires more expertise not less. Just like having a racing setup suspension. If you don't anticipate conditions all the time you are more likely to wreck that car than a car with a standard suspension.

Just as the internet has swept in to knock the foundation out from under brick and mortar retail, audiophiles need technical help and REAL information more than ever. As improving your already very good systems can not be done seat of the pants trial and error anymore.

We've got a lot of baby boomers that cannot move on (old new trick) and let me tell you as a gen xer' this vast majority within the audiophile community has slammed the brakes on how we view home systems. Their 10 to 1 voices often overshadow advancements because they are content because unlike 20 something's today the music of their youth was actually released on LP's! No such luck for todays young people.

I see it all the time, I realize most brick & mortars are not setup to give the help audiophiles need (owned by baby-boomers too). But so many regrets with huge audio purchases. Why? Lack of knowledge at the retail level and amongst the internet help and advice. We have a 25 year old technology we assumed would be compatible with how we have done things in the past. I think there is long history of evidence this is not the case.

"is simply too damn good for the associated gear",

It's not too good for your gear, its too good for only having two channels of that gear. If you only have two channels you can't own a SOTA digital system IME & IMO.

I can beat any two channel digital system with a surround system day in and day out. Everything the tube/planar/analog diehard wants can be found playing Cd's back in surround.

Think about it, it's like having an awesome set of TV repair tools (LP system) but you need to fix your car (CD).

Like it or not digital is not going away so we better start addressing it and figuring the setup out, instead of avoiding it and playing aging and decaying records.

Rapogee: My DAC (Museatex Bitstream) is a bitstream design as well, and like you do your DAC, I enjoy the heck out of it... I have always attributed this to the lack of upsampling, as even the players I have auditioned that have a feature to turn upsampling on or off, I have prefered the off setting tremendously. Just a thought... ;)

Hello Zaidesman. Sorry about the confusion. I just revved up my system yesterday the first time with the Consonance in play, starting with piano. The highs of a piano are not so high, and the piano is stationary in a single plane. Thus, the very good performance.

It wasn't until I put on some spatial music, like a full orchestra, that the flattening out and unreal over-sampling highs began asserting themselves.

I am going to reinsert my Lambda/Audio Note combo, and compare. I already know what I am going to hear, scary real mids, but gently rolled off in both directions. I want to find a non over-sampler that is more extended.

Still, I am pleasantly surprised at the Crystal CS4396 DAC chip. I would give the builder credit for bringing out the best. It sure beats the Burr Brown chip players I am familiar with, and that's a lot.

Some speaker systems, amps, preamp, cd players...ect, have a quality thats hard to put into words...many old and new components get this part right.

Vinyl gets this part right and is why it did not die it's predicted death. My old Counterpoint Dac gets this part right to...along with many others, old and new.

The ability of a component to convay "everything" without drawing attention to anything. Nothing rolled of, nothing tipped up, Balance...total integration from top to bottom in such a way that when you campare them to other products you may at first deem the other product better.

Many times the new product has that something "that stands out" as better because it draws your attention to "that something"....not a good sign for long term satisfaction of that product.

A lot of times the components that "get this part right" are the ones that fit the old thread...."Components I sold, that I wish I had not".

Probably, in the right designers hands...newer is better...Don't you think?

Dave

The better digital gets, the more two channel becomes a problem. If you are not using Prologic II or trifield to listen too two channel CD's you are not getting the best digital has to offer.

I know this will be disagreed with but digital makes 2 channels obsolete. Most of the "problems" with digital, forward highs, overly crisp and thin sound, metallic timbres are not inherent in digital per se. They are result of the greater resolution and signal to noise ratio resulting in completely different requirements for playback from analog LP's. Digital is several magnitudes better than analog in frequencies over 4khz. Much more accurate and phase correct, and when you crush all that ambiant information back into the front sound field the soundstage flattens out, timbre's change, spectral balance is tipped to the highs and the sound can become fatigueing.

You can call what I say ubsurd, but I have owned excellent analog systems for decades, equipment EAR, VPI, Roksan, Sota, SME, Counterpoint, Audible Illusions etc. What is ubsurd is banging your head against the two channel wall as the CD players with higher resolution and proven linear performance gains continue to sound worse, and less "musical" with more information coming off the disc?

That doesn't make sense, does it?

Is digital technology going backwards? hardly. In the proside its moving ahead in leaps and bounds. Maybe its advances are exposing what's backwards in our systems? Should make you wonder why more and more speakers are showing up with tweeters and midranges that spray sound all around the room, diffusing the soundfield. Think about before you spasm into an autopilot response please...

And if your answer is your experience with surround is that it sucks, well I don't doubt your experience was bad. But it doesn't suck, dealers and even manufacturers don't know how to setup their own equipment. This is a problem blocking many many people from realizing a great opportunity for music enjoyment.

One favor please when you consider what I wrote, assume I know how to setup a turntable, a two channel system also. I know that there's always this leap that the 2 channel system is some mystical animal, but its setup is very basic and easy for me. I've never had any trouble doing it.

I know most will assume I just got a denon, def tech system I want to rave about, but this is far from the case. So loan me some credibility for a moment if you would.

thank you

Muralman1, you wrote:

"Get a non oversampler player...any make will do...I am using the cheap Consonance 120...it played the most realistic piano in the room on my Scinnies so far...I have listened to a wide sample of oversampling CDPs and DACs...none do service to the material imbedded on the CD...Even the cheapest AN or Consonance sound far more natural to me"

Informed that the Consonance actually was an oversampling player (I'll take Drubin's word on that, I know nothing about it), you then wrote:

"Some material sounds first rate...piano to a lesser degree...The highs have that same edginess that all oversampling players have...the mids are cardboardy as well."

Can you explain how "cardboardy" mids and "edgy" highs yield the "most realistic" piano? Or how this machine can sound "far more natural" than any oversampling player you've heard, yet suddenly suffer from the same flawed highs "that all oversampling players have" once you learn that it *is* an oversampling player? An inordinate fondness for making sweeping catagorical generalizations without basis, perhaps? Or maybe you're agenda-driven?

Rapogee: I too use an older Theta (DSPro Basic IIIa, with a Pearl transport). A few years ago, under the onslaught of propoganda concerning "upsampling", I decided to give a try with something newer to hear what all the fuss was about, but the popular and well-reviewed DAC I got fell well short of the Theta IMO. I didn't assume this meant that all "upsampling" machines sucked of course, but I haven't bothered again since, though like you I occasionally wonder if I'm missing anything, especially since CDs still don't sound as good in many respects as my rather humble vinyl rig.

But I'm not the sort of hardcore audiophile who listens to a lot of different gear, and anyway a bypass test I constructed to help objectively evaluate the two different-sounding DACs showed that in fact, the Theta is essentially getting most things right or very nearly so. My gut feeling is it's probably more the transport than the DAC which could stand some improvement, and that getting the units modded instead may be a more satisfying way to go, although before springing for that I'll probably want to hear at least one well-regarded, newer all-in-one player in the hope of saving rack space (it would need to have digital inputs though).

However, this rising chorus in support of non-oversampling strikes me much as the one for "upsampling" did. Same type of rhetoric, replete with catagorical pronouncements -- another "magic bullet" as it were, to use Sam Tellig's regrettable (that's a polite way of saying stupid) phrase. I don't know if there's anything to it -- I tend to think this would introduce problems as much as avoid them -- but I don't believe in magic in the form of bullets or anything else, and Muralman1 you're not telling us anything to help convince me otherwise.

That's why I still love my Linn Ikemi! It's sound is less stepped than most cd players out there thus sounding more analog.*>)

Just got back from hearing an all Audio Note SET system. There was naturalness, and detail in spades.

The money factor should never influence your decision in buying. "more it costs must mean the better it is" is non-sense. The only exception to the rule is Jadis, which really doesn't concern many posting members here. Sure yrs ago the higher the price, sometimes the better the unit. But not anymore, this is the new world economy age, where we have access to almosy anything from around the world, via Inet. There are many great deals to be had. Bargains to those who know how to see one.

I've come to believe that in this hobby synergy is EVERYTHING.

In my experience, I've heard my Exemplar 2900 sound incredible with some gear, then after "upgrading" to more expensive gear, I've been sorely dissapointed.

Right now I'm using a Cayin A-88T Integrated to drive my Gallo Reference 3.1 speakers. It cost 1/5 of an earlier combo I tried. After taking advice from Boa2 and others I've found a great tube compliment and I have pure magic again in my system.

Lesson learned? It's not necessarily how much money you spend. It's about careful component/cable combinations that yield musical results.

There are many things overpriced in audio. You guys with mega bucks can afford to play. Us with limited budgets have to make things work first time around. My $1000 cdp offers everything I was looking for, and have zero plans to upgrade. I mean I guess the Audio Aero($5K +) and Jadis ($$$..$$) offers nice upgrades, but I'm happy.

I hear ya, Rapogee. Makes a lot of sense. Without naming names, I've heard several $8K+ players that frankly sucked, IMO. I hope you find one that works well for you. I think it's out there. It's just a matter of finding it.

Best of luck!

One good thing though, this is the only DAC that I will never ever complain about ever but if I do get a second mortgage it will be on top of my list for total musical pleasure but you have to question reality and price ratio. Hopefuly some day

Goldmund Mimesis 20M