jult52

Yes, what you're experiencing is an inevitable byproduct of better stereo equipment. I'm primarily a classical listener, a genre with a tradition of fine sound engineering, and I do find myself favoring sound engineering quality more than in the past when I had a mid-fi system. You seem to be more of a pop music listener. A lot of pop engineering is horrible, unfortunately. You face a genuine trade-off. I think a rational person might choose not to upgrade their system just so these weaknesses in their favorite recordings would not be exposed.

I think it's real and I think three things are needed: 1) The husband needs to sit down and look at things from his wife's perspective, and adjust his behavior in a reasonable way. 2) The wife needs to sit down and look at things from his husband's perspective, and adjust her behavior in a reasonable way. 3) The husband needs to start buying equipment that actually works. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but I read tha blog and I see a wife who has had it.

I know we could all look up their prices/fees but I thought it would be helpful if the posters on this thread could give a rough approximation of the monthly or annual fees these services charge. Also, I assume there is no restriction to mp3s rather than lossless files.

And it's not as badly produced and recorded as you seem to think - that's how it's supposed to sound.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking why bother to listen to rock music (I have a big rock recordings collection), it's why bother to acquire an expensive stereo system if you listen almost exclusively to rock music?

This is going to be provocative but often when I listen to pop music I fail to understand why anyone who exclusively or principally listens to this genrebothers with an expensive audio system. The typical production levels are simply so awful that it renders irrelevant whatever sonic benefits you have made to your system. I know there are some exceptionally well-recorded rock/pop albums, but they are swamped by the engineering disasters like Led Zeppelin III - just listened to it on my main system and I literally couldn't believe how lousy it sounded -- or Peter Gabriel I - a s***sh** of coloration and collapsed soundstage. I'm on the arty side of 70s rocks here so I haven't even reached the present era of dynamic compression. So let me ask a genuine question, coming from someone who is primarily a classical listener these days: you people listened almost exclusively to rock. Why even bother?

I'm puzzled by how any AppleTV-DAC combo could completely trounce a $10k setup. Haven't heard your system, but "blows the CD player out of the water completely"? I suspect there were some problems with your prior set-up. My experience - with cheaper equipment - was very different, but I'm happy to hear you are pleased. Note that I held the DAC constant in my comparison. Re backup: well, in my post I was addressing ripping the CDs, storing them on the hard drive and selling the CDs. You compare it to ripping CDs and retaining them for use, which I know is CA approved (sensibly). But ripping is a pain in the b***, frankly. I began transferring my 2k+ CD collection to hard drive and threw up my hands at the sheer effort of it, which could have been better used actually listening to and learning about music, which is much, much more fun than tinkering with computers. And I'm ignoring the constant spate of software and networking issues that afflict even the very tech-savvy crowd here at CA. I suspect properly implemented computer transports and CD-based transports are very close in sound quality. The additional effort associated with ripping and storage backup in my view doesn't merit that effort. As I mentioned in my prior post, I've been following computer music developments with a lot of interest and think they hold much promise for the future, but it's not there yet. Too much work, too few rewards.

Paul - Thanks for posting that.

Bromo - as usual, I find your posts interesting. I agree that the minimum threshold is really the most important one, but what's also interesting is seeing certain products that lower that "noise threshold" to a bottom-barrel price. Here are my selection of these products in a chain: Stupid Best Buy DVD player ($75) --> Audio Gd Digital interface (reclocker, w/ power supply) ($300) --> Schitt Bifrost ($350) --> Luminous Audio Axiom ($200) --> Emotiva XPA-2 amp ($800) --> Magnepan MMGs ($600) Cables/ac power cords ($275) Total: $2600 I think this system would sound great and bet I could live with it for a long time.

Bleedlink hedged this statement but I just have to radically disagree both on principle and in detail to this comment. (I also found DallasJustice's comment about the room requiring 75% of the expenditures - right below Bleedlink's post - unsupportable.) 1) Preamps have a major impact on sound. I think you can take a lousy preamp and pretty much ruin any stereo system. Give me $5k speakers and a crap preamp and it will sound like crap. 2) Digital reproduction is hard to get right, which is one of the reasons there are so many vinyl fans out there. I have about $2500 sunk into my digital front-end and I'm still unconvinced it's perfect and think it can be improved. (Note that the weak-link isn't the DAC. I think there are small variations in performance among different DACs.) 3) Different types of speakers require different amplification. Maggie 1.6/1.7s at below $2000 can benefit from amplification multiples of their cost. I just upgraded the preamp and digital output in my second system and I just realized - to my delight - that the box speakers ($2k) I was using were actually quite a bit better than I had initially reckoned. They were being held back by the electronics. And the existing price ratio in that system was 35% speakers - pretty high, but it appears it was too high as the electronics needed to be improved. I'm not that old but the "spend almost everything on speakers" strikes me as an opinion that was popular among audiophiles 40 years but has been just thoroughly discredited since then. No offense intended. I just respectfully disagree with the two posters I cited.

Here's an educational (for the less knowledgeable) thread on the Steve Hoffman forum that I found helpful. Power Conditioners - passive vs. regenerators vs. isolation transformers | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

Oneandahalf - fascinating response. Thanks for all the work that went into that post. I read up about passive transformers which, in pro audio applications, look to be inserted after the DAC and before the preamp to reduce power noise & ground loops, among other things. The passive transformer you describe instead looks to me like an especially sophisticated Isolation Transformer, something like a Furman IT-1210 or Tripp Lite unit. Is that correct? If so, do you recommend the use of pre-built isolation transformers?

Thanks, Alex. This is very educational. (I understood that power issues before and after any conditioning would require different solutions.) Given all these myriad problems, isn't the obvious solution to begin using rechargeable batteries for everything but the power amp? Such as the linked rechargeable Lithium-Ion batter pack? Amazon.com: Rechargeable Li-ion 12V Battery Pack: Home Improvement

What sort of sonic effect will SMPS producing AC in its output have? Re line power noise and the proliferation of consumer electronic devices using switching supplies, wouldn't power conditioning take care of most of the problem? Like many audiophiles, I don't connect my power amp to my line conditioner, so that's one exposure point. Thanks in advance for the answer.

Could you explain the significance of that 81.9v measurement for the less technically educated readers, sandy?