I have to ask this(actually, I thought I mentioned this in another thread.). It's been at least 25 years of digital. The equivalent in vinyl is 1975. I am currently listening to a pre-1975 album. It conveys the soul of music. Although digital may be more detailed, and even gives more detail than analog does(in a way), when will it convey the soul of music. This has escaped digital, as far as I can tell.
Tvad said, "I wonder if musicality blended with accuracy is a trademark of Sony DVD players in general, since I have noticed the same qualities in Modwright Sony 999ES and Sony 9000ES players."
Perhaps. Although the TRL/Sony 900 seems to be an entirely different beast altogether. I have yet to hear any player that is as musical, yet accurate.
There are, however, apparent differences in how and what we hear ... which is cool, we don't all like/prefer the same sound. There are folks that prefer SET tubes and horns over solid state or Push-pull tubes and cones or 'stats. and I'm sure that certain players integrate better into some systems than others.
My point, we are all different. I will point out that the TRL/Sony 900 is an excellent example of the TRL house sound which has its following, too, as noted when I stopped by the TRL shop last Wednesday. I saw 15 Sony 900's in various stages of modification. This did not count the 5 or 6 that shipped out last week, according to their "white boards". These all came in as a result of folks hearing Brian Kyle's TRL/Sony 900 in the VMPS/Bruce Moore/Xtreme Cables room at THE Show.
I'm sure that the other modifiers have noted the same success after showing their wares at THE Show and CES.
We all have different tastes.
My vote for the most soulfull, emotionally involving player goes to the TRL/Sony 900.
interesting thread...gets a little personal..so would everybody please put down their gun..
in review of digital, i would have to agree that analog is easy to listen to and 'get lost' in the music very quickly...
however, given the need to have a decent digital rig is absolutely needed when you want to listen to something that is available on cd only. so going back and forth is when you notice the discrepencies.. but are you making a really fair comparison ?????
most analog owners will have a analog rig that is 5x-10x the cost of their digital rig.. so is that really a fair comparison ?
think of the years you have listen to bad digital because of a poorly isolated unit and stock power cord (cringing !!!!!!) there have been quantam leaps in digital playback over the last 6 years and in the very best digital units have rivalled analog- though at a much hugher cost...
the curren state of digital has been promising except fot the demise if sacd/dvd-a . Imo, WE ALL LOST ON THIS in regards to a high level recording format...
but for now, affordable digital is very, very, good and "in somes cases" it has equaled vinyl in overall terms in digital units costing $3k-$5k..
i am hoping by the next quantam leap we will be ewual footing or better yet higher gtound..
I've found digital recordings via Lp to be a revelation. Still not as good as the best analog, but much warmer and imaging and soundstage and textural complexity are much better than any CD or SACD player I've ever owned. Textural differentiation in the bass, (such as being able to hear low harp and timpani as two distinct sounds), are much better on digital Lps as well. It may no be the digital recording that caused all the mess, it may be the disc itself.
Boa2: Subtlety wasn't the issue ... showing that we are all different with different tastes was.
Perhaps you missed this paragraph:
"There are, however, apparent differences in how and what we hear ... which is cool, we don't all like/prefer the same sound. There are folks that prefer SET tubes and horns over solid state or Push-pull tubes and cones or 'stats. and I'm sure that certain players integrate better into some systems than others."
I'm certain that your Wife hears differently than you do, too.
Guidocorona, I think is was a combination of the afteraffects of listening at Aplhifi combined with his proof that it wasn't the digital recording process that was the problem. I also experienced some of what I' de call digital effects not driving me crazy. Maybe that would be analogous to the ticks and pops on records driving some people crazy? I have to ask a question, though. I heard an Eric Clapton cd, in which I found the dynamics to be different than what I was comfortable with. Do I need to speed up my listening process or something?
No Mak, do not speed up nor slow down anything. . . just listen to the music and follow your heart. If the APL 3910 player gives you joy it's the one for you. If in the end it does not, then it isn't. And this goes for any other player as well as for digital in general. As I posted elsewhere, think of the audition process as 'dating'. Was it exciting yet only a one or two night stand, or are you now ready for a commitment and you want to take 'her' home to Mom? In other words. . . was it lust but the two of you are not truly compatible, or is it true Love?
guidocorona: yes, indeed. yes, indeed. but, it does appear that people really believe that the way to the 'soul'in music is through equipment and technology. whatever.
My vote for the most soulfull, emotionally involving player goes to the TRL/Sony 900.
Jack, your previous posts indicate that it was the Esoteric DV-50 (which is the best ever and as good as the $30K processor), then it was the Sony 595, then it was Sony 2000ES, then, wait, the best ever and most musical ever is the Marantz SA-14. What I am talking about? The best ever now is the NS900V - the pearl of the CES2006. Any press on that by any chance?
Remember this from me Jack, Epoxy can not be upgraded.
You should worry less about the ramblings of one man, (me), and more about folks like FX-Jitter and Ta-Chen Wu, whose e-mails still remain unanswered (over 18 months for Ta-Chen Wu). (Phone calls, too.)
Another issue: Why is it that the course of discussion always has to be centered around you and your APL products? If anyone posts about your competitors, (especially TRL), you and a handful of your supporters are quick to post derogatory comments and in extreme cases, sending unsolicited e-mails to us making rude comments about our choice.
If there is one thing that I've learned in my 30 plus years in the hobby it is that we all hear differently and all have different tastes. This is easily seen in the Inmate systems portion of AA or by viewing the gear of various members of Audiogon. SET versus transistor ... single driver horns versus electrostats .. we all have different tatses and likes/dislikes.
This said, why are you so defensive whenever the praise does not center around you? If you have the press from CES that you believe that you do, and the customer support and plenty of work, then why are you concerned about what a JES45 or a Clio09, or an Lkdog has to say? Why?
And, why can't you allow us the opportunity to share and discuss OUR opinion and likes/dislikes/tastes?
What is a digital Lp? Lps mastered from digital tapes. From about '78 to '82(?) digital tape was available, but not the CD. One could only buy digital records, with the word DIGITAL splashed proudly across the front with all sorts of technical info on back. CD's came out later, but Classical records continued to be pressed simultaneously by the majors, (Decca/DG/Nonesuch/Philips, etc) until about '89. They're not bad at all. I particularly recommend Ashkenazy's Rachmaninov cycle and Mackerrass' Janacek.
i once read an interview with Tom Shultz (guitar gear designer, lead player for Boston) and he felt that the elimination of Phase distortion in the digital relm got rid of a lot of the environmental cues (i.e. sence of space) that are present in analog. maybe he's on to something. My digital set up is pretty darn nice but i can easily get drawn into extended album spinning that is much more rewarding and my analog is low end Linn arm on a CJ walker table using a B&O reciever for a phono pre...not much to speak of. Maybe Tom is onto something.
I can't find the comment, but he said something like I last listened to digital in 1988, enough said. His comment has a ring of truth, but I want to address the importance of history here. For instance, I 100% deoxited and 100% progolded my Oritek X-2 interconnects recently. At first they sounded harder, later that changed. To see if they benefited from this, I went back to my old Hi-Fi Answers information. It said that if something got louder after a change, it was better(this is in the analog days). Another thing they said, if it made more albums listenable it was better. I would have to agree, but I put the final decision on the Ori, of Oritek Audio.
I want to address something else about history here. I am 54 years old and I count on something I did over 25 years ago as important, or more so, than anything I have done since. I tried to set up an Ariston RD11E with a Grace arm, and Osawa-22 mat. The belt kept coming off. It was almost impossible, yet I learned a lot. I learned that one spring corresponded to what comes out of one speaker. Another spring corresponded to what comes out of the other speaker. The third spring had to do with the middle. I also learned that its three feet were also audible. One side of the cartridge screws(its alignment) corresponded to what one heard from one speaker. The other side of the cartridge corresponded to what comes out of the other speaker. Anti-skate is also audible. Just understand the theory and use the whole record on anti-skate.
My last two comments were a prelude to my next statement, mostly directed to the ecomically challenged out there. You can get music from something like a Rega-Planar 3(straight arm, preferable), or as Alex suggests, a Music Hall turntable. The software here can cost as little as a dollar. My recommendation is for pre-1982 albums.
My most recent vinyl setup consisted of an Oracle Delphi 2 turntable with Sryinx tonearm and Monster Genesis 2000 cartridge. This was driven with a Conrad Johnson Premier Nuvister tube head-amp into various preamps. As a vintage 1987 setup, it was no slouch. I’m sure it would still produce that magical vinyl sound even in today’s environment. I sold my record collection about 3 years ago, followed by the phono set-up. I have not looked back.
I started my audiophile career with a Dual 701 and Signet cartridge in the 70's. I enjoyed the sonic beauty of the first great moving coil (Supex) and shortly after changed to a Denon AC direct drive with a Grace 707 tonearm. Moving through the years, I’ve had the Magnepan tonearm, Linn Ittok, and many others that I forget. I've owned a Linn LP12, Ariston, and other high-end tables. I found the Dennessen metal protractor to be my alignment tool of choice. In other words, the history lesson is only to give you an idea that I was a vinyl junkie, and I knew how to properly set-up tables and tonearms. I would have argued as late as 2000 that the turntable still sounded better than the CD. I had many identical records and CD's to argue this fact. Trouble is, there are no identical CD's.
Even though I had identical vinyl and CD samples like Mobile Fidelity copies of Supertramp "Crime of the Century", Japanese copies of Fleetwood Mac "Rumors", Joe Sample's "Rainbow Seeker" and the Crusaders "Chain Reaction", the comparisons weren't fair. This has much to do with the date of the original master tape. As we all know, tape degrades - sometimes rapidly. A vinyl recording pressed close to the original production date has a severe advantage over CD's pressed from that source 20 years later. The proof can be readily heard in the comparison of Rainbow Seeker. That CD sounds absolutely horrible. The comparison between vinyl and CD in this case is laughable. More proof of this problem lies in the comparison of vinyl alone. The U.S. pressing of Rumors if purchased within 3 months of original release sounds heads and tails above ones pressed 2-4 years later. I know this because I burned through many demo vinyl copies in my store. I also owned up to 5 copies at home including (2) US, (2) Japanese, and (1) German 192gram bought in 1995. The original U.S. pressing was superior to the rest. You don't find this to be the case when you purchase and compare Japanese to US records within 2 years of original release. The Japanese are always much better. We can argue that this may have to do with the number of pressings made off the metal master, however, it is my contention that these incidents have more to do with master tape degradation. It is simply unfair to compare an older vinyl collection to the same recently recorded material on CD.
This brings up some other issues. There are remastered copies of some great originals that do hold their own against their vinyl counterparts. In fact, because of having no surface noise, the CD may get the nod. I find this far more prevalent in comparing classical music. The other main issue is proper equipment comparison. Let’s face it, the camp arguing that vinyl has that special sound, realness, presence, and dynamics that can't be heard with CD many times are not comparing cost vs. cost. The proper "goosebump" vinyl setup surpasses $5,000. Let’s make sure that we are using the same in digital equipment. The most recent digital high-end entries that will price out in this category will give vinyl a run for the money. And I qualify this statement by saying that we must compare recently recorded CD's to their vinyl counterparts for a fair comparison. You will find that CD will in most cases outperform vinyl in this atmosphere. The one most vinyl-prevalent item that I yearned for in CD was dynamic impact and transient attack. The best CD players now outperform vinyl in this area. Other areas that are improved are quietness, inner detail, and timbre. It seems that there is much emphasis now in the audio press about having a "black background". It's difficult to have the blackest background if there is surface noise present. My player, although modified, is analogue in nature (if you want to put it into those terms).
I believe my current system creates that “analogue” sound and then some. Unlike my record collection, more than 75% of my CD’s could be used for demonstration purposes. I think this speaks volumes for the format. I remember being very careful buying albums because you just never knew whether the recording was going to be good enough for the system. Granted, the recording process has become better, but since the variety of music is no longer available on album, direct comparisons have become difficult.
I hear and understand why most would hold onto their records for life. There are recordings that will never be converted to CD and those that will never sound close to vinyl. I just got to a point where I wasn't listening to the older recordings that I could not replace. When replacing many of the classical selections, I found the presentation far more appealing due to the lack of noise. I truly feel my current set-up is better than vinyl and is certainly as musical. I enjoy my listening sessions more and listen more often. My selection of listenable music is far greater. We really have moved forward with this format.
Tgun5, you have a very good post. I am buying a cd player from Aplhifi. I hope to enjoy music from it. I just wonder about the kids. They have no money. Should they be denied music because of that? I understand that the finances are further complicated because many preamps don't include phono-stages now. But it was very informative what you said.
Those that use a good cartridge alignment gauge like the Dennison and tighten up their cartridge bolts are kidding themselves. I believe generally that the cartridge bolt that is closest to the outside of the record corresponds to the right speaker, as you face it. So, you don't completely tighten the bolts. Then you slightly move them one way or the other. When one speaker sounds likes it is in, you stop on that side of the cartridge. You then move, slightly the other side to equal what you got in the other speaker. With anti-skate, you have to realize that you are compensating for the increased pull that you get as you get closer to the end of the record. If it sounds better at the beginning of the record, you don't have enough anti-skate-for example.
This is for the financially challenged. Assuming you have a suspended-subchasis turntable, the spring on the right usually corresponds to what you hear on the right speaker(as you face it). The left spring to the left speaker. The spring towards the back corresponds to the middle of what you hear. As you bring the cartridge(on one side)towards the front, the treble will get brighter(or more prominent). If you get one side sounding better than the other side, stop! Then you try to get the other side to sound as good. Take your time! Go very slowly. It's no problem to keep things static, until you get an understanding of what has happened.
I know this off subject, but I have to mention it. Don't try to do something with any cartridge parameter that it wasn't meant to do. In other words, find out what it the best for each parameter and stick with that. If it doesn't provide the bass that you want, then it doesn't provide the bass that you want, period. It requires finding out what each cartridge parameter does what.
I have had access to a current spec APL Denon-3910 cd player for about a week, and it's not broken in yet. First, get the cd, "Jerry Garcia Band's" "After Midnight" at Kean College(in Texas), 2/28/1980. You will not regret it. I would think the Grateful Dead site would have it. Since I received this APL, I really haven't listened to analog, and I have a Linn, Ekos, nude Archiv, Mana table, Lingo. I feel that I have to attend to the turntable's setup before I do, and I thought it was sounding pretty good before this. I'm not sure that I can recommend pure digital recordings yet, but I think recordings made in analog, played back on a good cd player are okay. That has to open up more music for people. For instance, the analog lp's that I listen to are 1981 or earlier, because I found digital lp's recorded after that time to be a problem.
This has been all of Febuary now some of March, where's TVAD ? Does anyone know? Is he still reviewing the results of the last CES show or just not feeling well ? PLease Tvad if your out and about please give some input. We would love to traverse again.
I just setup my Linn, nude Archiv, Ekos, Lingo, on the Mana table. There is no doubt in my mind that the most cost-effective approach to having music in the home is analog. That being said, it limits you to 1981 or earlier albums(some 1982's).
That guy who recommended Mapleshade's cd's might be on to something(They record everything in analog first, before putting it on cd.). First, I 'de like to thank Alex of APL Hi-Fi for proving to me that it isn't the digital playback mechanism that is the problem. He recorded directly from a turntable to a cd, and it sounded just like analog. I have an APL Hi-Fi, Denon 3910, and on the Jerry Garcia's Band, "After Midnight", analog would be hard-pressed to duplicate this cd. It was an original analog recording. I still think those people who don't have a proper turntable are crazy(one-dollar albums!). I don't listen to many lp's made after 1981(for good reasons), and I suspect that a similar attitude needs to be taken by cd-users. Some recordings can give you a headache! Let's get some real feedback on that.
I've been away and haven't noticed this tread before so a big caveat - I haven't read all of the posts and I'm confident someone has already asked the question - but, what the hell is the "soul of music" as it's related to audio replication of a recorded event.
If a piece of music touches my soul I would be as touched if it were on a '78 or an SACD. I would be listening to the composition and the performance to find its "soul", not how good it sounded over my audio system. I'm not against great audio reproduction, in fact its one of my hobbies. I've just never though of it as being the the source of "the soul of music".
May not have the "soul" which is audiotory and aesthetic.The needle in groove being so sexual in it imagery may be the aesthetic part.Plus it's making sourse of enjoyment "mortal"(it will wear out).But perhaps that our ears beiong analogue "instruments" are picking up that digital is foreign and LP's "warm" and re-aauring like tubes.Have to get to this months Stereophile to see if their is such a thing a "pleasant distortion" which many folks have saiud is why tubes sound beter-we hear low order )pleasing warmth) as opposed to higher order distortion which is well unpleasant and just "distortion".But I now ask same question of new digital amps by Bel Cantgo and PS Audio.Both got Class A ratings in steeophile.And digital amps offer real advatages over traditional solid state and tube amps.They use very little power,keep cool,,etc.But reviewers are always using words like "clean","Neutral","does not impart own signature" and I am not sure that this might all be good.Some may hear it and dig it.Other will invrariably call it either "soulless".Lifeless"."boring" etc .You have to hear yourslef )preferably in your room 50% of your rigs sound anyway) to se where you stand. Chazzbo
Man Never thought the post would generate som mnay reponses especially ones dealling with fish.Just as aside when I sold CD's at a shop ('96 to '02)I used to tell folks that starting in about 2000 when K2 and other 20 bit processors were being used and engineers stated to understand how to transfer analogue tapes to CD they started to sound much better .Being the jazz guy II used to put on Fntasy/OJC CD's and they were terrible.But now listen to ones e-materedafter 2000 like say Knny Dorhams "Quiet Kenny" or Creedence Clearwaters Cd's which were also re-doone and your jaw would drop if doing an A/B comaparrison. But part of the earely problem (which exists till this day) is that some Engineers can't help themselves from trying to be the "5th Beatle" aince they had ability to effect EQ,Compression,expansion,filtering etc etc.Which brought me to reccomend that to customers (and jazz fans) to see how good their stereo could sound by buying the Mappleshades label's "Clifford Jordan:Live At Ethells".Mapplehade used their own cables,modified mikes,and pople placed onstage close or far away to mikes for level.It went from mike straight to two track tape machine so no board with EQ,reveb,compression etc etc was employed.The result was like being in the room with the group.With a decent yet modest speaker you could hear fingers as they passed across key's and the normal breathing of Jordan while others slo'd if you listened carefully.Jordan playand on one cut sings funny yet heartfelt version of "Lush Life" an in addition to being impeccable performing was STUNNING sonics. The only other recodings other than Mappleshades are those (and SOME MoFi and JVC RXRCD's) are those on the Venus lable out of Japan.It taught me that all those lousy early 80's digital LP's were because the tech back them sucked and engineers didn't know what they were doing.Venus now has a huge catalogue of some of the best in Jazz and also did a few wonderful transfers (Like Al Haig's "I Love You" origninally on Interplay in late 70's).I always heard that LP's should only be pressed from analoguetape.BULLSHIT!!Just listen to one of the 4 Ballad CD's/Lp's Archie Shepp did for Venus like "True Blue" (both pressed from the same digital tape).BUY and listen to this LP.It's as good as any LP I have ever heard.This was the problem for me with Venus.The Lp's sounded so great and had that "tactile" sense you only get from Lp's but I knew (and could hear) that CD's had a much wider dynamic range.So in most cases I bought both!But the silly sounding processcalled "24 bit HyperMagnum Sound" was,and is amzing,proving to me that FANTASTIC LP's can be mae from digital source tape.I know Neil Young is a big analogue tape fan and uses it (or did until recently) to record his CD master tape.I respect him enomously as and artist and someone who knows technology but I wish he could record for Venus. Chazzzzzzzzzzz Any more Filet of Sole jokes did we miss?
Listen to Chazzbo. He has a lot to say, especially when it comes to jazz. I just want to mention something, but first, I want to appreciate what Tvad said about DVD-A releases from Classic records. Personally, I would stick to actual recordings recommended by people. In this vein, I totally recommend the Jerry Garcia Band "After Midnight" cd. Take a look at the price of ticket, when you get it. I would like some feedback on this cd. I don't believe I've steered you wrong. What is this hobby about?
I have been drinking(for those ad hominum people-actually that's the only term that I remember from my Logic class- you can discount what I say immediately.). First, I want to mention the Las Vegas show-where analog was featured(according to both the "Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile"). When setting up an analog system, you use objective parameters(such as, levels and recommended tracking forces, etc.). This gives you a goal. I am actually using digital to dial in my speaker's(DCM Time Windows) distance from the wall(Thank you Alex of APL Hi-Fi for your modified Denon 3910(Class C according to Stereophile, before Alex does his magic.). Then you use your ears(with analog, it's no problem). For instance, with 3 feet or 3 springs, they are audible. So is the arm-cable tie-off. I'de err on the side of conservatism(Gemini's don't touch that dial.). You get suprised what does what, no matter what your preconceived notions are. The youngsters out there have actual short-term memory. I suggest you use it. Don't try to use things to make up for deficiencies in the playback mechanism. See what does what, by experimentation. Confusion is confusion. I'de suggest that you don't do anything until it is no longer confusion.
I forgot to mention the criteria used to evaluate music. It is how much you get off on it(I have other ideas, such as what plays through your head. but these are experimental.).
my experience at the last 12 CES shows and several stereophile shows as well as numerous visits to audio buddies tells me that most stereo systems sound lousy.
after listening to live music, i don't want to listen to recorded music for a while.
the closest thing to "soul" was listening to 4 original quads with a quad amp and analog.
the second closest was listening to 4 original quad speakers with a low powered tube amp with a decent cd player.
the point is that with original quads, it's hard not to have soul, even with digital.
one other point, get some mellow sounding cables with digital and there is a better chance of having "soul"
First off, I've never gotten-off on music more than hearing Alex's set-up at his house. I am,also, very grateful that I have an instrument to hear recordings made after 1981(I have, but rarely listen to, lp's made after that.). Alex also has given me a direct to cd recording from an analog lp, that he made. I've been burning in his cd player, also. Eventually, I will compare. Two things bother me, though. One-the music that plays through my head is generally analog. People don't realize what this means. I know that I don't(yet). Two-before modification, my cd player is Class C at stereophile, so cost of music in the home is my other problem. You can get a Rega Planar(or maybe a Music Hall)turntable and get one-dollar albums that, for sure, will bring music into the home. I have an obligation(unlike the audio press) to let the financially-challenged know that.
Sorry Mak the analog music in your head bothers you. Perhaps you should try the kind that plays in my head. . . it is generated completely synaptically and it is truly no bother.
You know Guidocorona that I won't let it rest. I have to admit using Alex of APL Hi-Fi's modified Denon 3910 and the Jerry Garcia's band's "After Midnight" to move my speakers a little, that it sounds great! To those audiphiles that use only one source, I think that you are crazy and not qualified to comment on this situation(how does that help turntable sales?). Have you guys read what was used in the high-end rooms in Vegas? The fact(I haven't used SACD yet.) is that digital has problems in the highs. I want to boost analog in two ways. One is the relaxation that it provides(and those that use both, feel free to comment). The second is the cost. A Rega Planar(with straight tonearm) is maybe $400? With records at $3 a pop(and if you stick with 1981 or earlier albums), analog is the price leader. For those interested in cheap digital, I would suggest you investigate the Zhalou(mentioned in Head-FI). Rather than ridicule my "playing in your head" comment, I suggest you take it seriously, and when you come to the same conclusion that I did, to ask why? It might be very instuctive.
Way way back in this thread you were told that digital was not compatible with two channel playback. As you have found even stuffing tubes (lol) in a Cd player can't over come the fact you only have two speakers. I know how this topic rubs audiophiles the wrong way, but to say "digital" is lacking when you haven't even tried to tap the real strenght of its abilities then your comments have an asterisk attached. And I am talking about stereo redbook Cd's
*when listening to digital on a two channel system, analog appears to better it.
Did you ever think that LP's enjoy homefield advantage on a two channel systems? as they were developed together at the same time over 5 decades?
Why is home theater so popular? surround sound of course! Now do you really think if audiophiles put their money where their mouth was and supported digital (better sound) and the surround companies who matter that it would be a matter of 6 months a year before improved multi-channel music systems would begin to appear for the music enthusiast!
I find that most audio equipment designers are clueless when it comes to the potential of surround. Most just slap the chips in from Dolby, Cirrus and car stereo EQ DSP's and call that a processor.
Think about how far back in the stone age audiophiles are when they are embracing amplifiers that have circuits that were used to send morse code from ship to ship in 1917! Have systems with no room correction or cannot adapt to the soundstage of an orchestra than to a soloist....these nuances left homogenized by room acoustics and the limitations of the basic pair of loudspeaker.
Funny thing is you never mentioned what speakers you have, which is likely a the source of yourpercieved "problems". It has been my direct experience that the high frequency problem likely exists in the speakers not the cd player.
New Records are not $3 a pop, used records are $3 a pop. So are used CD's $3-$5. Why is there a double standard applied? I'll tell you why, because any jr. high shop class can make a working turntable, its not that hard.
It takes a serious company with real tooling capacity to make a Cd transport. I've never seen a DIY Cd transport. Fear of the unknown, how many audiophiles are control freaks,,,lots its part of the personality.
IMO, the best CD transport were made in the early to mid nineties, they were overbuilt, pioneer stable platter. etc.
DVD transports are built so marginally its no wonder we still have significant jitter and data loss problems. But since we don't "see" the transport we likely don't perceive its part of the problem....so we fix what we can see...new cables or we buy a new more expensive transport when the one we had was simply out of specification.
Having watched my grandfather (a true audiophile) and learning from him, todays audio enthusiast is a Consumer not a participant of the hobby. Knowledge is replaced by belief. Did jesus walk on water or did he walk across a reflection on the sand? What do you believe?
If a $20,000 preamplifier doesn't come with the right power cord, is the designer competent? What do you believe?
The right answer will never be a concensus as opinions represent beliefs. In the face of facts, there can be no opinion.
The soul is in the artist's performance. Whether a stereo system can convey it or not, specifically, whether or not the digital format is capable of preserving the soul of the original performance is the question here. My feeling, from listening, is that it can.
And whether or not a specific individual is capable of grasping the "soul" of a particular artist's performance is yet another matter.
Sorry, wrong again. The soul starts in the composer. If the composer does not commit the right notes to the score, no amount of performing skill and passion, no amount of artsy recording engineering, no amount of fanciful analog or digital reproduction, no amount of angst, passion or hyperactive neurotransmitters in the listener are going to make an Iot of difference. . . In other words, the elusive 'soul' of music lives in the chain of artistic, technical and emotional causality.
mr g, what evidence do you have that there is soul in a composition ? it is an opinion based upon your experience of listening to music. it is not knowledge. let's not get too presumptious.
let's not get too carried away with an opinion. it is based purely on experience which does not yeild knowledge.
it may be an "educated" opinion, an "expert" opinion, but as an opinion it is neither true nor false. tha truth or falsity of an opinion cannot be ascertained.
a soul may be a part of ahuman being, spiritually speaking, but music having a soul, i think not--but thats just an opinion.
>>You are overlooking the Teac Esoteric VRDS transport. The manufacturing on this unit is way ahead of what Pioneer were doing with the Stable Platter.<<
Agreed. The Esoteric transport is the standard by which all others should be measured. This is indisputable.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
