Geodesic1

Thanks for the review Chris, I enjoyed it and it opened up a host of discussions that I found interesting. Elcorso commented on the 'Society of Sound' recordings sponsored by B&W (and ostensibly by Peter Gabriel). <br /> <br /> I was a member for most of the last 12 months, and it gave me a lot to think about. Much is made on the B&W site about sound quality, and the quality of the recordings that they offer (there's nothing like front-loading your experience by being in an 'exclusive' club that markets how great the sound is all the time). And I would agree that <i> Some </i> of the recordings are very high quality. But many are average or worse. This is particularly true with the LSO recordings that they give out each month. Initially, in my excitement, I only downloaded the 24 bit music. For some albums, it was worthwhile: Alyn Cosker's "Lyn's Une" for instance. However, the I can't think of one LSO album that has been offered that I would even begin to suggest is recorded well enough to care. <br /> <br /> The nice thing about the SoS is that it is very inexpensive, and you get access to some (generally well recorded) new and interesting music (I love the Afro-Celt Sound System!). But if you are paying <i> extra </i> for your 24 bit music, then consider:<br /> <br /> Well produced music sounds fantastic at both 16 bit and 24 bit (to my ears). <br /> <br /> An upsampling DAC narrows the gap enormously! I have the stunning "Jazz at the Pawnshop" in 16 bit (from the CD) and in 24 bit (from HD Tracks). Without my DAC in the mix, there's a difference. Afterwards? In my "blind A/B" test I can't distinguish a single difference (The 24 bit was still a good buy as it came as a 3 CD set instead of the usual single session). <br /> <br /> No amount of upsampling, stereo gear or similar will apparently make Meatloaf's "Bat out of Hell" (a brilliantly conceived album in my opinion) sound like it well produced. In fact this album may have been the greatest victim of my pursuit of better sound (it sounded great on a ghetto-blaster when I was a kid).<br /> <br /> And the latest Maroon 5 CD sounds <i>over-produced</i> and <i>compressed</i> no matter the system. Great for a single song on the radio, but tough to listen to for enjoyment.<br /> <br /> I have an album of Heifetz Double Concertos that elicits excitement every time I hear it. Every time. None of the SoS classical pieces do anything special to me. They are crowded muddy recordings with no distinguishing features in my opinion (this sounds harsh, but I really got tired of all the tripe about how great they were, then I would listen to them and sort of go...meh).<br /> <br /> What is particularly interesting here (prepare for the blasphemy) is that a really well recorded/produced song, and I'm specifically thinking of Melody Garot's "Who will comfort me" even sounds great on .mp3 (I know!). In all likelihood, it sounds even better in 16 bit or 24 bit, but when ever I hear her voice on my stereo (I think I only have it because it was an iTunes free download one time), I have to stop what I'm doing and come into the room and listen. With a big smile on my face. So much imagery! So much air and space, and at the same time clarity of expression! Now some part of me says that I should pick up a higher res version of the song...but the truth is that I simply don't need to. To my ears, it sounds amazing! <br /> <br /> My thesis then is this: The pursuit of <i>pure</i> sound (24/96 vs. some lower bit rate) should not be at the expense of <i>good</i> sound (well recorded, well produced). <br /> <br /> I fully appreciate the advantage of 24 bit music, but I still prefer to listen for <i>great</i> recordings!<br /> <br /> My two cents!<br /> <br /> R.<br /> <br />

Geodesic is from Geodesy, the science of measuring the size and shape of the earth. As a geomorphologist, it is a tangential science. I was looking for a unique moniker one day and geodes popped into my head (you know those rocks full of crystals). One thought lead to another and I then started thinking of the bizarre and dramatic geodesic domes that some people build... That's it really. Thanks for the comments guys! R

My relationship with music has been long and rewarding. As a teenager I was struck not only by the poingant lyrics that articulated my moods and defined my generation, but equally by a late night motif that would suddenly drift beyond the music box and place itself squarely next to me. That sound could be so precisely captured and transported to a holographic aural stage was in its own way, thrilling. Like many young men, I spent considerable time in high end stereo stores, dreaming of future gadgets and whirlygigs that would transport me from the mundane into a virtual world of sound. Unlike many men, my interest in music did not diminish as grew older and got a family. I wasn't distracted by big TVs. I remained emotionally invested in great music. But like most guys, I didn't really know what made an expensive system better than an affordable one. And families demand that you spend money on a range of items, of which, music is only one. The dream met reality years later on the west coast. I had found myself gradually frustrated by an acoustically difficult house, by the proliferation of mp3s (largely at 128 kbs), a car stereo that was the weakest link in the car, and moist atmospheric qualities that seemed to absorb sound, leaving my Mission bookshelf speakers feeling underpowered. I wasn't enjoying music the way I felt I ought to be able. My original goal was to replace my speakers. My brother had the good sense to point out that I really needed a new amplifier more than I needed new speakers. Up to that point, I had associated all the change in quality of sound to speakers. I figured that a decent amp was a decent amp, and my Sony was great...right? So I got an education. I spent a day auditioning different amplifiers and different speakers (having brought my entire set to the audio store). I brought a couple of CDs with me, but the one song I ended up using consistently over and over was the opening portion of Your Lastest Trick" by Dire Straits. To my shock and amazement, a high quality amplifier brought considerable life and color to my speakers. I ended up liking them much more than several new speakers that were for sale. But a nice amp paired with great speakers...Wow! I was hooked. Money is still a limiting factor in the pursuit of diminished returns, as is lifestyle and where everything will fit. I ended up with a Cambridge Audio 540R pre-amp paired with a set of Focal 807V 'bookshelf' speakers Now I know that in some circles, this is still an entry level gig, but to me the sound was beautiful and vastly improved from my previous set up. I was on the steep part of the curve. All of a sudden I was enjoying my music again. By the way, I should point out that several practical decisions were made in the process. I listened to several amplifiers and picked the one that I thought sounded best after several hours of testing. I also picked an amplifier that could grow with me if I changed how I wanted to listen to that sound down the road (or, for example, wanted to be able to impliment home theatre). But in the meantime, the straight stereo sound that came out of the amp was fantastic. And so it continued...I began wondering whether I was better off using an optical cable rather than RCAs out of my CD player. I had several interesting discussions with audio dealers in box stores about why one would pay more for one particular optical cable versus another. The highlight of these discussions was the argument with the salesguy who proposed better magnetic shielding in the more expensive cables. I pointed out that they were optical, not electronic, and that I didn't have my stereo next to a black hole and wasn't expecting a lot of signal loss. Anyway, I eventually got some answers and used the optical digital out on the CD. Again, what a difference! Crisper, more clarity, easier sound. Though I didn't really understand why. I didn't get that every one of these units had an internal DAC, and that the DAC in my Cambridge Audio was simply loads better than the one in my CD player. I didn't really get the function of a DAC at all...just that it sounded better. I added a sub (also Focal) to round out the bottom of the music, and eventually tuned it to simply fill that space rather than take over. It took a while because the bass is slightly addictive, but eventually I arrived at a realistic base presence that allowed for all the color in the highs, the mids and mid-lows to do most of the decorating. The base is there now to add drama and presence, without taking away from the storyline. The next step was of course getting all my music onto a single server. I researched relentlessly, inspired by the continual rewards that I was getting for my efforts and settled on the Olive Opus. This is a beautiful piece of kit and the price is right (or at least on par with my previous expenses). A half terabyte (You can get bigger hard drives; I picked the one that matched my needs) drive, touch screen, advertised excellent sound, the Olive seemed to be the solution I was looking for. And I really wanted to avoid having my music 'look' or 'feel' like a computer...aesthetics are part of the experience. My experience with the Olive started poorly. The machine I received happened to have some bugs, and it wasn't really behaving. The Olive customer service guys were great, but at the lowest point I was thinking that it would not be a solution for me after all, and I was regretting the three weeks spent transferring CDs onto the hard drive. However, in the end the company came through. I was given a brand new machine (two attempts to repair the previous one ended badly) and this one worked perfectly right out of the box. [An aside: The Olive Opus remains, in my opinion, a sweet option for those who are interested. The user interface is not as refined as something like iTunes, but with some time spent in the front end building playlists, adding album details etc...it becomes really impressive. It can play 24 bit files so you can upload all your FLAC (or other format) HD songs as well as import CDs, mp3s etc... The touchscreen works very well, and it's nice having the album artwork etc... present - much like it is on the iPod - when you are listening to music. I often find myself now shuffling through my entire collection of music, classical next to country, jazz next to hip hop, world next to rock, and all I can keep thinking is "Wow, I love this song...I forgot that it was so good! I wonder what's coming up next?" There are some drawbacks, however. 1. The Opus won't play back 24 bit files using the internal DAC. This has been fixed with a new version of the Opus that is about $500 more expensive. 24 bit files leave the Opus on the digital out and and can be read by whatever onboard or external DAC you use. 2. The remote is ugly. 3. The software allows you to organize by a clever genre hierarchy, but you can't shuffle etc... within genres. To do that you must build playlists. As I mentioned, there is some front end work to deal well with large collections (mine is relatively modest at about 500 CDs). Would I do it again? Absolutely!] Finally all my music was in one place and I was hearing songs I had forgotten about. In addition, higher quality internet radio sounds better to my ears than FM...not just because of the lack of commercials! I opted to use the Cambridge Audio internal DAC, not only because I liked the sound of it better than the Opus, but because it enabled me to process the 24 bit data. The curve is beginning to flatten out. What remained? I knew that I didn't want to chase sound forever; one hopes to reach a point where one is simply able to sit back and just enjoy the sound. But I wasn't quite there. I detected occasional clipping or some other distorition and I knew I hadn't heard it before (using a CD player). I had trouble when a 24 bit song was played in a mix right after a 16 bit song (almost like the DAC just couldn't adjust to the new information) resulting a sudden volume change and plenty of obvious distortion that had me running to the stereo, and during my struggles with my first Opus, I was looking at other solution options and finally did some real reasearch on DACs. I was curious about whether a good quality external DAC would not only solve my last issues, but would once again improve the sound quaility. There are many mixed reviews about Cambridge Audio's DACMagic, but the critics love it, it's a great price, and I knew it would play well with my amp. So I ordered it too. Now I hoped I would be able to hear a difference. That it wouldn't be just a lateral move. And I acknowledge that I don't have an objective measure of the outcome because I didn't switch back and forth between two complete setups. But for my money, I'm not just statisfied, I'm positively thrilled. I immediately perceived a difference (as in marked improvement) in clarity presence and placement in the soundstage, but interestingly, it also improved the color of the music. It is a little warmer and more natural sounding. Nuances are breathtaking and I am finding that many of my recordings sound better than they ever have. Including when they were on CD. Interestingly, the recordings that I usually use to test sound did not seem to change that much. I'm not sure if I got any more out of the dire straits song I mentioned earlier for example. It is still a gorgeous piece of music. The embrosure change as the trumpet dies away at the end of the first solo is intimately present in the livingroom. I just can't tell if it improved. However, all of my 'pretty good' stuff has lifted to a similar quality and I'm hearing notes and instruments in them that I hadn't heard before. Amazing! Oh. And it dealt with the previous issues perfectly. Immaculate clarity. No clipping. 24 bit music comes in just as 16 bit music did...or perhaps I really should say the other way around. Say what you want about upsampling. I'm sold. After buying the DACMagic I made one more modification. I turned down the sub just a little bit. There... Perfect. I finally have the system my 17 year old self wanted. It was worth the wait. Cheers, Rick.

Specialist in landslide hazard research. Mr. C, if you are looking to go to grad school on that topic I have a good contact for you, a colleague of mine in Basel Switzerland...

Right. I'm using an "AV Receiver" that is equipped for 6.1 surround. I'd forgotten that since I use it strictly for stereo music connected to a pair of focals. I was reluctant to discuss the name of my server before sorting out difficulties with the first couple (physical models) that I had here, but I have all my music on an Olive Opus. It's working well and it's a fair bit more elegant than some of the other options (for my money anyway). The upfront work getting files organized internally was a pain...but now it's there and it sounds great! I remain curious about the likelihood of hearing a difference using an external DAC and will probably audition the Cambridge Audio DACMagic to see how it compares. I've read some of the reviews and I gather that there are a few truly exceptional DACs, however, the costs are prohibitive. Particularly since I think I'm rapidly moving to the flat part of the curve where considerable effort produces small (if noticeable) improvements in sound. Comments welcome. R

OK. I have some answers to my questions about DACs and I thought I'd post my own results for clarity. 1. The Cambridge Audio PreAmp DOES have an internal DAC. There are digital (coax and optical) inputs and analogue inputs. In the Cambridge Audio case, if you use the analogue inputs you bypass the internal DAC completely, and no processing is done on the sound. If you use the digital inputs, the sound is processed through the internal DAC. Conceiveably, you could connect your MacMini up to the Cambridge Audio amp and let it do the work. The server I am using (I have a new unit that appears to be working properly now...) also has a built in DAC, roughly equivalent to a high end CD player. Using that one rather than the Cambridge Audio DAC does produce a slightly different sound. The Cambridge Audio DAC produces a wider sound field, and it seems to produce greater frequency separation and crisper sound, however, the server has a rounder possibly more natural, if duller, feel? I haven't decided which one I will ultimately rely on and the problem is slightly more difficult because as soon as I switch from one to the other, there is a volume change. That aside, I am currently using the Cambridge Audio DAC. I will probably not get an external DAC at this time. Thanks for all your feedback!

Thanks for the information guys. Peter, you were right about my misconception. Thanks. R

These questions could reasonably go in this forum topic or the server one...I picked this. I have been struggling a bit with a server solution that I may have to return as it is somewhat buggy. I am considering a mac mini solution instead. I have a couple of questions... 1. Since the mac mini has an optical output, why wouldn't I simply connect it to my Cambridge Audio amp and let that amplifier act as the DAC? Am I missing something? Would an external DAC simply mean that it had to convert twice? 2. How does upsampling actually work? It sounds suspiciously like increasing pixel resolution on the wave form representation. Is that all it is (a smoothing)? Does it make a difference in sound? Or does it fill it with a new artifact? 3. Does anyone have experience pairing the mac with a touch screen? Best regards, R.

Great information thanks. I have been struggling a bit with a server solution that I may have to return as it is somewhat buggy. I am considering your mac mini solution instead. I have a couple of questions...<br /> <br /> 1. Since the mac mini has an optical output, why wouldn't I simply connect it to my Cambridge Audio amp and let that amplifier act as the DAC? Am I missing something? Would an external DAC simply mean that it had to convert twice?<br /> <br /> 2. How does upsampling actually work? It sounds suspiciously like increasing pixel resolution on the wave form representation. Is that all it is (a smoothing)? Does it make a difference in sound? Or does it fill it with a new artifact? <br /> <br /> 3. Does anyone have experience pairing the mac with a touch screen?<br /> <br /> Best regards,<br /> <br /> R.