Cdwallace, it sounds interesting. I've got an outside chance to hear some Yamaha 5.1. I've read some things that say that the highs aren't as disturbing with surround. The 5.1 guy is a psychic vampire, so this may take awhile.(For reference, read the Celestine Prophesy books-although they don't go far enough.) I'm 55 and they are all trying to drain my energy. How smart is that(how many people of this age have excess energy)? Don't worry about trying to explain it to people, it just doesn't work. I guess that it is more important for them to drain energy, than it is to understand energy, and try to increase it for themselves. It's a very interesting concept, but, actually, totally absurd-if you read me carefully. |
Mmak, I will say this...as fair warning. If you hear what you've read about surround, then the system is not setup correctly! I can say that with the upmost confidence because I've heard systems (my own, others, and those it audio hobbyshops) that sounded horrible until they were setup properly.
I've read about $200k systems that were surpposed to sounded "musical" and everything but actually sounded the complete opposite. If you want music, then we need to talk further. Be careful what you read because it may cause you to miss out.
As for Dolby...if you let that sidetrack you, you'll never find what you're looking for. Dolby is just a "name" if you will. Similar to the bose "name", but different in far too many ways. Dolby doesn't correct (per se), but Dolby "redirects"...places things in its proper place and perspective, as far as surround is concern. It takes the information that was condenced does to 2 channels (CD's etc.) and "uncondenses" the info and spreads it out across 5; processing the info to keep it in line with the correct placement of the 2 channel info. I hope that makes sense.
The goals has nothing to do with Dolby, its about helping you out where possible.
Let up know how it goes. |
I will have an oppotunity to listen to 5.1 soon. What I've read is that that the part of digital that is unmusical, becomes less unmusical with surround sound. I, actually, don't care one way or the other. I just really need music in my life. |
Cdwallace, I appreciate your response. I need to study all that you've said, and I have read what D_Edwards have said. I still wonder why or what correction Dolby does to make 5.1. It just seems to me, that if Dolby has to correct, that maybe digital doesn't quite fit surround. You know what I mean? I'm really going here with, maybe, Oneobgyn, who has both-yet listens mostly in two-channel. These discussions are beyond me, but eventually, I will have to change my speakers, so it is of interest to me. |
Mmak - Don't get me wrong. I'm by no means the expert or pretend to be either. I've had a mentor (D_Edwards) to walk me through a lot of what I and others have mentioned before regarding 2CH and MC. Infact, truth be known, you can't get MC any where near "right" unless you follow the same steps for perfecting 2CH first. Thats another story in itself, that many just don't believe. Why...who knows.
Anyway, there isn't a lot left to reveal. There are no "secrets", just facts at are readily avialable to everyone. Its all there for people to see and try for themselves. Its just a matter of being openminded and willing enough to give it a try. This is what us "MC guys" are saying when it comes to this thread.
MMak this next statement isn't directed at you...directly :)
If there are any other specific questions or statements, wheteher its from MMak or anyone else, fire away. However, if it doesn't sound like the concensus, don't call it hogwash or start with name callings. If you don't agree, great. Just don't get gun shy when we ask one came to thier objective conclusion.
MMak - I and others will be more than glad to help where ever we can. Post more questions or shoot me an email. |
CdWallace, you have excellent points. People should listen to what he has said. Can you give us any more insights? My last investigation of analog versus digital revealed that analog was a little more relaxing(but wasn't as detailed). Now, I don't have the most revealing analog setup, and Absolute Sound and Stereophile say that analog is still better than digital. I can only try to improve my analog setup. It takes me about a week to dial in my digital's volume, so I'm reluctant to play analog. |
"My APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cost me $2500 and beats my $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Now, my analog is old and not completely dialed in, but isn't that why digital was so successful to begin with?"
Mmak...thanks for the kind words. To be perfectly candid, technologically speaking of course, age is not a pertinant factor. Your 1992 analog system, more than likely, employed the same ideaology and application as the original 1960's version when it was created. I'm not certain of course, because I don't know what you system consisted of.
Granted, there may have been improvements through the years, but for the most part, depending on the components used, it's probably a duplicate of the original. Digital used this and things similar, as a "springboard", allowing it to capitolize on the shortcomings of analog. It took the same principals that produced the good qualities in analog, formed its own "signature", and carried the audio torch further, where and when analog could not. IMO, I don't think analog shortcomings is what made digital so good. Digital is an entity all in itself, just as analog; allowing for its own "evolution", just as analog. Your systems age or incomplete setup, as you say, has no bearing in this instance.
"Most people didn't dial in their analog, or went with direct-drive."
I beg to differ on this. You have a point, but its not what you perceive. Far too many people have "dialed in" thier analog systems, and have learned to accentuate and even manipulate analog to the creation it is today. All be it, these systems also sounded very good. This is why I say that analog has improved since its creation until now. This is where the evolution part comes into play. People have managed to bring out the best in analog. Some may have, as you say, went onto direct drive. Nevertheless, many have gotten analog as good as it gets.
"Cdwallace, I understand that you are stating what has been said previously, but do you realize that 5.1 has Dolby involved to make it work?"
This is a very true statement, but somewhat incomplete. Yes, dolby has played an important role in making 5.1 what it is. Be it from a technology/format standpoint and even from an industry/marketing point of view. However, Dolby did not make MC what it is. There many variation of MC surround, to include versions and configutations of 5.1 (ITU and others), 5.0, 10.2, ambiosonics, and even others. Like Bose, Dolby was able to take advantage of an opportunity, as well as capitolize (Dolby) on its own legitimate advances in technology. Dolby played a major role in the advancement of MC, but Dolby didn't make it what it is.
"I haven't spent much time looking at this, but I would think that if correction is applied, that the argument that digital is meant for surround sound would have some holes in it, if it requires correction."
This is a common practical misconseption. A properly setup high end 2CH system still has room for correction. As does a MC system. This does not and should not imply that there is "something wrong" with the format, though. The correction merely implys room for improvement. A high end 2CH system in an empty bare room can be "corrected" in the performance by the addition of room acoustic treatments and such. Does this mean that 2CH is errored? No, but this situation showed room for improvement, which, in this case, would produce noticable results.
Digital is what it is, just as 2CH analog. However, same rules applied, just as room acoustics helped in the previous scenario, surround improves digital which produces noticable results. Granted, room acoustic correction can help any system, 2Ch or MC. I only used that to help further my point. No format is perfect, but when setup and configured to its optimum, it brings the format much closer to perfection. Surround does this for digital.
"I have read that the harshness of highs can go away with surround versus two-channel with cd."
Mmak, this is only the beginning. Surround, done correctly, can produce remarkable results for digital. One Dobly created "format" comes to mind as well, Dolby PL. This isn't the only one, and there are others that were not Dolby created or inspired, which can redirect and/or eliminate digital "shortcomings" as well. |
Cdwallace, great writing! Adhoc and Nilthepill, the latest Absolute Sound agrees with you. I just wonder about the economics of it. My APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cost me $2500 and beats my $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Now, my analog is old and not completely dialed in, but isn't that why digital was so successful to begin with? Most people didn't dial in their analog, or went with direct-drive. Cdwallace, I understand that you are stating what has been said previously, but do you realize that 5.1 has Dolby involved to make it work? I haven't spent much time looking at this, but I would think that if correction is applied, that the argument that digital is meant for surround sound would have some holes in it, if it requires correction. I have read that the harshness of highs can go away with surround versus two-channel with cd. |
Cdwallace, I'll drink to that! |
Yes Guido, we do! About as much as we love glaring into the LED eyes of the system were "dating"...after 2.5 bottles of Cognac of course. Only thing is, digital won't result in a hangover or chaffing in the morning.
(The dating idea was yours, remember?) ;)
Hey next rounds on me, everybody! Drink til your liver hurls. :) |
Ah yes, don't we all love TRUE BELIEVERS? |
Nil and Adhoc...I'll have to agree on this with you. When you listen to an LP (analog) on the same 2CH system and configuration as a CD (digital) 2Ch system, chances are you will come closer to live with the LP (analog). And I even know why. Because the "playing field" is uneven.
Digital is not optimal in 2Ch. Sad but true. This is why so many hate digital, because they can't grasp that it isn't optimal in this setup. It's horrible in 2CH.
However to level off the playing field, digital needs to be played in the configuration it was optimally designed for...MC. Otherwise your be chasing your tail each time. Let digital do what it does best and was designed to do, MC. Now things are more even!
When you factor this into play, LP's are a thing of the past! As for soul, digital has DSP's to take the edge off, amoungst other things. |
Yes, Nilthepill : That's what I said ! |
All you have to do is here is one live musial event of a particular genre (Jazz, Rock or classical), make a lot mental notes, come home put one LP of same genre and style (of course the same exact music is even better), listen carefully. Then while memory still fresh, put on a CD of same LP and listen. Be honest. Admit which is more CLOSER to the live event you just attended. Well I have done this many times this year. LPs come ahead every single time. Sure CDs can sound SPECTACULAR, but NOT like the live event. Don't take my word for it, Do it deligently and many times as possible. IMHO of course. I do listen to CDs but only when I don't want WASTE my LPs ;-) |
Well, as I said, I am very pleased with my digital outfit, the CD/SACD Accuphase DP-85.
I am not an anti-digital and pro-analog.
I still buy LP's when I find something interesting, but I more often buy CD's.
(I won't even mention all the practical plus of the digital over the analog).
Maybe I am just half deaf or with terribly decadent tastes but, with a great system, both digital and analog (100'000$), I prefer my best recorded LP's to my best recorded CD or SACD.
That's all ! |
Audiofeil, I might agree with you. The problem is sometimes with digital we accept less. As an example, I refer to my, "instant relaxation" statement. Audiofeil and D_edwards, we are all after music, aren't we? Surely, as talented as both of you are, we can all get something from both of you? Adhoc(here comes my ignorance), you didn't mention this, but I will repeat it. Ones and zeroes(on or off) aren't music. So what if you sample it at 196khz. What does that mean? It seems to me that you are just not limiting the highs(I may be wrong here.). My cd player(APL Denon 3910) doesn't unsample regular cd's, and the highs are fine(I know, my speakers!). Regular cd's are, what, 44kz? Now, we come to bits(The only stupid question is the one unasked.). 24 bits(or more) versus 16 bits(regular cd)-what does that mean? There are more ones and zeroes within a given physical area? Anyhow, in practical terms, the mechanicals of turntable playback introduce inconsistencies, that with a proper cd-player(i.e., APL 3910) are, to me, about equal. I'm not talking about arm and cartridge here. I'm talking about level, belt, and springs. I once dialed in a turntable correctly(Ariston RD 11e, with Grace 707, and ADC XLM 3), and it involved dropping the motor from the top-board. People(i.e., Fremer of Stereophile) shouldn't discount what Roksan has done with their motor. |
Those who love analog sure love to bash digital....
I have yet to come across a thread which started the other way round....when will Analog get the soul of music, what is wrong with analog, for example?
I understand perfectly all that tweaking, cleaning, mechanical beauty stuff and the need to bash digital, after all Digital is about Digit (numbers) and Analog is about Alan (behavior)
There I go again with my digital bad habits, I can't help the jitter messing up some of the bits, even as I write. And what is missed can't be filled in by our ears/brains, at least not by us less retentive folks. |
Adhoc;
We believe much of the same things except we are on opposite side of the line. I believe in and recognize the romance and nostalgia as you point out and please note I have had 10K records and still have atleast 2500.
I have had turntables from VPI, SOTA, Well Tempered, Linn and Roksan.
And preamps from AR, EAR, MOTIF, Audible Illusions
The thing is records are history, they are not coming back and when it comes to 24bit digital they aren't even close to the same quality.
I still (although rarely) get paid to setup turntables, I am still considered an analog expert by some people. Funny I know. But I know more about analog than I do digital right now, I bet you can you the same thing?
I know you "prefer" analog, but that doesn't make it better. I know why you prefer analog and it has to do with your system. A Subaru STi can mop up any Ferrari on a gravel dirt road, if you design a car for a particular enviroment it will outperform a superior car out of its element.
Analog and Digital are so different in what they demand from a system design to be their "best" you will almost never reach an equality between the two. I have tried for over a decade to get a balance and its difficult. My success with playing music in surround put an end to my struggles with analog as digital with surround is just too much for the LP to withstand.
We have to let go of the LP, so the hobby can move forward. $7,000+ turntables are never going to be supported widely, so we have to accept that if you have analog keep it enjoy it, but stop saying its better, because it isn't even close to what we can get from digital.
Let me use this analogy, sometime this year Brett Favre will stop being the Packers QB, its because he isn't getting any better and no matter how good he is now and how good he was, the Packers need to develop a new QB to attempt to solidify their future.
We have to support a digital format to fuel its development, the LP's best days are over. In four years we will put it in the Hall of Fame.
Digital is so much more than just a format, it get into room eq and other capabilites that will take audio to the next level. |
D-Edwards,
2'000 - 3'000 "analogic" people ? Where ?
I must say that like everyone, I enjoy all the practical advantages of digital gear, simple clic, etc
I just say that I enjoy more analogic sound than digital, owing very good gear in both fields : so, I still listen to analogic and buy LP's - less than CD's and SACD's, that's true (choice and practical advantages).
I have around 1'000 LP's and 1'000 CD's & SACD's.
One thing is sure : it takes pretty much money to have a very good analogic gear : turntable, tonearm and cartridge.
But, as I said, for me, I spent as much money in my CD/SACD player (Accuphase DP85 I love) as in my analogic stuff Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 and Lyra Titan (if I except, my analogic preamplifier, a Lamm LP2, I must say).
I believe that you can have a very good analogic sound with 7'000$ (turntable, tonearm, cartridge, for new stuff.
Less - possibly much less - if you find good used stuff.
Of course, if you spend more money you will have something even better : but over a certain level, price, the improvement is much less obvious than the the increase of the bill...
Something else : there is a beauty in turntable, tonearm, cartridge similar to the one of a great mechanical watch compared with a quartz one. Some people are sensitive to that, but it's probably true that most people who own both analogic and digital gear are older than those who were born at the digital era.
There may be a nostalgic feeling towards the "original" sound, the analogic sound we have been used to as children and teenagers !
Eventually, I understand perfectly well people who prefer digital, its dynamics, for instance.
I just say that I prefer analogic simply because it sounds closer to reality to my ears. |
>>What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours.<<
I'm afraid my speculative friend you have no idea what my system is comprised of so to say yours has been picked over it twice (by whom, where, etc.) is simply ridiculous and disingenuous. You really should not make such assertions without empirical data; to do so is a bad mark on your character.
No more soup for you here. Private email me if you choose to continue. |
Jkalman,
excellent point, keep in mind redbook CD has a non linear application of bits, which favors compressed popular SONY music formats. It is why I make sure to state 24 bit digital.
24 bits suffers none of the ills of redbook. many digital processing units of higher quality now process above 40 bits. So sine wave capable digital is.
We need to move away from redbook Cd as the "digital" source, but when the people most concerned about sound quality in the home want to champion $5K+ analog systems and that vocal minority is in key media positions professing hanging on to LP's and buying used collections of mistreated vinyl as a gateway to musical glory.....the hobby will not move forward.
the heel dragging needs to stop, I'm tired of no serious R&D on multichannel systems and software, because audiophiles think two channels and LP's are superior.
Armed with a Meridian processor and some good speakers, I could put any of these two channel systems in the shed for good. Subjectivity? That's what they all say before they get the lesson.
You can always tell when someone is clueless about surround and high quality digital....they say it wasn't any good, then you ask them "why they didin't make it sound the way they wanted?" They don't even know what that means and you get dismissed. I guess if you're not changing power cords or adding Shakti stones, they don't undertsand.
well that's been my experience till now...good point jk |
I think the major problem is that certain formats don't allow for enough dynamic range (16 bit isn't enough for more than piano alone according to experts such as F. Alton Everest). The other problem with having the bits too low is you lose more of the sounds created by heterodyne. Even if you can't hear certain frequencies, some combine to create a third frequency which you can hear. |
Audiofeel,
Did it ever occur to you that I might own other equipment? I think it's a bad mark on your character to disparage a system you have never heard or anything like it for that matter. What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours. Go figure, I would think I would have to whip out the Meridian to get a clear victory but that doesn't seem to be the case
Tubes and whizzer cones seem to have found an obstacle with my little surround system when it comes to playing music.
well I'm not worried about it. |
I can't for the life of me understand how you can pronounce digital superior to analog based on your gear. Go figure. |
Adhoc,
"And for many other people too."
No for a precious few. 2000-3000 is not many people, and the number is shrinking everyday.
What's funny is I probably have more records than you do, analog's been around for my entire life and I think I understand it very well.
What is really high end analogic gear? How much do I have to spend in your opinion to get good sound from a used record? Tell me I'm interested in what you think it takes.
BTW; how many records do you own? |
Ahh well the Analog Blues do go on....it ain't completely dead but it's always pining for the fjords....the good 'ol days of vinyl...would anyone be interested in a slug? |
Nice of you to say that digital is better than analogic.
But at my home, it's the opposite !
And for many other people too.
Do you really have a high end analogic gear ?
If you only compare datas, you don't go far in music... |
Audiofeel,
"You do not speak for those of us who know better."
The people in your cult calls the leader "Better"?
....that's kinda cool |
>>Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices<<
That is your opinion only and readers should take it as such. You do not speak for those of us who know better. |
MMAk,
No, use with two channel CD's
Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices.
Neil Young is a hippy with marginal talent, when the greatest orchestra conductors in the world have no issue with digital why should we?
Mmak,
If I had Cerwin Vega D9's and told you that digital was perfect...would'nt you consider comments a bit influenced by the quality of my speakers? Your DCM's are of the same ilk and you need to get much better speakers because you are just wasting your time trying to quantify analog versus digital when you're speakers are flawed and have difficulty with digital playback as a matter of their character.
Also I disagree 100% with your statement that music is too relax too. Music is a prime mover for me and I thrive on the tension early REM songs (using a recently mentioned example of a band with poor thin recording quality as an aesthetic to their music) like "fall on me" which is a protest song and it should get your attention!
There's music for every emotion and that tension is what makes it compelling and interesting. If you're trying to relax to music like REM, then you're barking up the wrong tree. |
Sure, that the best CD/SACD players are much better than 10 years ago, and often sound very good.
Now, besides theory I just spoke a little in my former message - I can't develop more in english, not to say that I am not a technician - I just can say :
- I have a very good CD/SACD player, Accuphase DP-85, considered among the few best ones (16'000 euros in Europe)
- as analogic outfit, a Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 tonearm and Lyre Titan as cartridge.
Well, my top sounding LP's sound better than my top sounding CD's or SACD's.
Richer, fuller, warmer - just more musical, if I can say that.
Ok, more dynamics in CD's.
I enjoy a lot my CD's, no problem, but when I want to listen to the best sound, I put my LP's. |
Very interesting, Adhoc. I too believed that digital was wrong-and it was backed up by listening. Now, I'm not so sure. I've found digital more than tolerable with the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910. Maybe it's due to less than optimum setup of my Linn(circa 1992). But, I no longer, necessarily get tense from all digital. My current interconnect(Oritek X-2) was designed mostly listening to digital. I do have ideas on cd's now. First, cd's made from analog tape are mostly(albeit, maybe, they are a little clinical, but generally that's musically insignificant) okay. Second: cd's made after 1995(approximately) can be excellent. My question here is, was there a breakthrough at this point(1995), or was it incremental improvements(I don't believe the second.)? I have found one cd made earlier that was able to communicate the music message with the cd format(R.E.M.'s, "Automatic for the People"-hell, what do you want for a buck?). I've got to admit that I've not tried turning down the volume of those objectionable cd's, to see what effect that has. D_edwards, when you talk about surround, are you mostly talking about 5.1 cd's? |
digital is a wrong way for reproducing music, compared with analogic.
Even if it's superior physically, in some fields.
It cuts the time into instants and reconstructed it after, more or less closer to reality.
Neil Young, for instance, has never accepted digital, calling it a crime for music !
I have been positively surprised by the JPS cable "Digital AC" made for CD/SACD/DVD outfits, which makes sound the digital gear closer to the analogic true sound. |
Let me just say this. Lp's made from 1981 or earlier are all relaxing(vinyl enthusiasts don't recognize this). I'm trying to codify cd's. What I'm thinking now(and how come a cd neophyte is the one coming up with this?) is that earlier cd's sound better when coming from analog tape, while later cd's(at least 1996) can sound pretty good. I don't know why, but why am I the one even suggesting this? No ears out there? |
I think that there is much more going on than we think(with apologies to those that have pointed this out in this thread). I just bought 38 cd's for $38. I played a few cuts from each(almost), then I got to Earl Klugh's, "Life Stories". At the back of the cd it said, "The music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape." Well, guess what guys, when I played this cd, it was instant relaxation. Isn't music supposed to relax you? I guess I'm confused. I understand that the digital recording process is not the problem. At least, I've heard cd's from analog turntables, and I've heard cd's(like this one)derived from analog tape, and they are both relaxing like analog. But some cd's aren't relaxing. I think that we need more clarification here. What we have is a cd maker apologizing for maybe lost information, but not understanding how relaxing their own cd is. Is there something wrong with that equation? |
Apparently, XRCD is a better mastering process but has no differences from redboook. |
I'm not completely sure that the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 still costs $2,500. I read on Alex's site that the base Denon 3910(from Denon) has gone up in price. I now listen to cd instead of lp. I've started another thread on Audiogon, "I've found the cd player for analog lovers"(or something like that). My analog system now needs tweaking to become another source(I have 2,000 lp's and 5 cd's-with access to many more cd's). My analog sounds darker(tracking force? At least that's where I'll start.). I just can't believe how this APL 3910 went from something I didn't listen to much(but was needed to access recordings made after 1981) to something that I listen to exclusively. I have some explanations, but this current APL really turned my thinking around. Currently, I think that analog may too easily be colored(if anything is off), and, what I thought was inherent in digital, really isn't. The irritating highs are gone. For example, we played the Beatle's White album in cd and lp. My friend, and I both preferred the vinyl. After he left, I slightly turned down the volume on the cd, and the cd beat the vinyl. I couldn't believe it! I now am wondering about the amount of information with digital. For instance, I had both the cd and XRCD of the Eagles', "Hell Freezes Over". The XRCD had much more detail. It may have included more of the Hall sound. I don't even know what XRCD is, really. |
Alex, I appreciate your defense of me, and I owe you many gifts for your Denon 3910. I have to say, though, that my 1981 and earlier lp's recommendation is based on listening, though. |
Guido, I am not trying to defend my product or the fact that Mmaksahk is a beginner (we all started learning at some point in time) but will have to say that, according to the "Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy", Earth MKII was much better. :) So there is “a lot more and even better fish”. :)
Nilthepill, there is no upsampling in this particular design based on Denon 3910. This cheaper all-solid-state re-design was intended to be more affordable due to many requests that Brent Rainwater (APL Hi-Fi CSM) and I have received.
Mmakshak, it is very good to hear how much you like this Denon 3910 version, especially compared to your vinyl rig. To be honest, I have never been a big vinyl fan, but you're perfectly correct - besides all of its imperfections, the vinyl offers audio quality reference comparable to the original master tape. Why? Well, vinyl is pure analog. :) Sadly, just like digital, we are still limited to the actual vinyl recording quality (regardless of the year it was released).
Regards,
Alex |
Thanks Mmakhak, I will fine and look up Alex's website. I need a cd transport/dac combo that don't do no monkey business-:). I am still debating among DCS stack, Emm Labs, MBL and Metronome. If it delivers analog like sound for reals that It is a keeper for long long time. |
I really like your moniker, Nilthepill! Is it based on what I think it is? Anyhow, if you read my thread and responses, I really am an analog fan. I don't know about oversamling. You are asking the wrong person about DSP. Maybe someone can help you here? I know Alex mentioned something about it when I went to get my cd player from him. Alex's website is called APL Hi-Fi(I'm computer dumb.). Your question about whether it is just the Denon transport mechanism is unanswerable by me, due to my inexperience. I tried to print Alex's e-mail, but maybe the sensors decided that it was too commercial? I just want to say that Alex voiced it based on analog, and volume seems to be key in my system. I must mention that I've not put the(at least)200 hours on his player that Alex recommends, but you know that equipment only improves with time. I do know that his player has challenged me to fine-tune my analog. I'm not sure if(given my current finances) I can fine-tune my analog enough. I will try to post on Audiogon's analog section about Alex's player. |
Mmaksahk, Does APL Denon 3910 do over or upsampling or is it straight-up 16/44.1? Sorry I am not familiar with this model. Is it Denon CD player and modified or is it APL brand using Denon transport mechanism. What does DSP do? Is there any Alex's web site I can go to?
I do agree with Vinyl being standard for comparision. Even with my limited experience of less than one year w/analog. |
This is being compared to $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Just don't tell me that your memories of analog are equivalent to actual listening. Come on! Let's get something going here. Let's get it right! |
You will need to let it break in for 200 hours; it will be even more unbelievable. I can not reveal what exactly is done in your Denon because it’s confidential, but I believe it is in the league with the best all-solid-state digital units on the market today, cost no object. It was indeed developed with pure analog in mind. It was “voiced” and finalized using A-B test with vinyl.
Here is a summary of the mods in your player (this is something that can be revealed):
Linear Power supply for the DSP (Digital Signal Processing).
Low jitter APL Hi-Fi Master Clock
Various extensive power supply upgrades.
Bypassed certain Digital Processors for pure signal path.
Paralleled DACs.
Re-designed filter stage.
Single ended Class “A” MOSFET output buffer.
|
I think the problem is that analog provides the baseline(1981 or earlier recordings, unless you want to spend $30 per album). Let me put it this way, both (or maybe three) of my designers have bought or brought back their analog systems. Guidocorona, you need a benchmark, and this is it. Let me say what happened tonight. I played the Beatles "White Album", comparing digital to analog, without an SPL meter. Originally, the analog was much more relaxing, but lacked detail compared to cd(Boy, they are very comparable!). My friend made me play the analog, instead of comparing both, but when I lowered the volume on the digital, I couldn't make up my mind. I repeat, the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cd player is for analog lovers. Alex says that it was compared to analog. For those that don't know Alex, he is straight-up! He tells me 200 hours. This was from the get-go. Still, you need a reference(My reference cost $10,000 in 1992.). I need input from people who have both. I'm sorry, Guidocorona. Cd's vary too much. I've gotten much information on this site about cd's, but let's join reality. There is much more variation on cd than on analog(My recommendation on 1981 or earlier albums is pretty valid.). |
>>I don't think that I can take seriously anyone that doesn't have an analog system<<
Wow! That's an awful bold statement. I have a number of friends and customers with all digital, absolutely killer systems, who know high end audio quite well.
I can't agree with you. Sorry. |
Approachable electronica...
Most anything by Bjork.
Soaring highs and solid bass, electronica gloriota.
The latter works of Everything But The Girl. You'll be surprised.
Most anything by Massive Attack, Thievery Corporation and Chemical Brothers. |
Sure Mak, I understand your requirements. And as I do no longer own an analog rig, nor will I own one in the future, all I can say is: no problem, No need to try to take me seriously. And quoting that pearl of modern epistemology, Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, I shall bid thee farewell, and thussly leaving say to thee: "So long, and thanks for all the fish!" |
I don't think that I can take seriously anyone that doesn't have an analog system. What we need here is people that have both(analog and digital). An analog system consists of a belt-driven turntable(Rega, Music Hall, Project, etc.). In addition, it has records produced from 1981 or earlier, or the super-expensive recent releases. If you want details on this, e-mail me. I wouldn't discount a cd system. For one, bass is better to dial-in speaker placement. Just don't ask me to take seriously people who lack a turntable. I say this due to the relaxation quotient of analog. It is positively there with the recordings that I mention(I believe Joseph Valin tried to describe this in other terms-I will simplify it for you.). What we need here is realistic people. Cut the B.S. I have both cd and analog. Try me! |
I don't know how Alex of APL Hi-Fi did it(he doesn't even have an active turntable-although that will be changing soon.). But for you analog lovers, I believe his APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910, will do the trick. I'm not sure why. Let me give you a little background. He modified my APL Denon 3910. While I was waiting, I upgraded my Nuforce 8.02b's to 8.5's(this mostly had to do with a power cord upgrade, and maybe their footers.). I dialed in anti-skate on my analog(see Mana Acoustics, Hi-Fi Room, "How to tune the Mana Sound Table by Ear".). While I was waiting for the upgrade to my cd player, I raised my signal cables(per Mapleshade). I also separated my signal cords from my cords. I slightly changed my speakers distance from their back-wall. All I can say is that I've only listened to his player since I got it on Sunday. I will investigate further, but I believe analog lovers need to investigate his APL Denon 3910! I will be investigating this further, and provide further info on my set-up. I have dialed in my anti-skate for the tracking force that I'm using. The end result is that I feel I need to fine-tune my analog to be competitive to this cd player. |
