mpmct

"This is your only warning that these types of comments will not be tolerated." Wow, that chinces it for me. I know Gestapo when I read it. Happy trails, Mr. Objective. I find no evidence that you are any more than a nobody from Minnesota, a self-appointed 'audio expert' who has yet to share his background and credentials, should he have any, except that he started a blog that will separate the naive from their hard-earned money, based on that elusive, and I quote: "Hi-Fi sound". Oh, and useless re-clockers. Shameful stuff. Period. Only a few of you will read this dissenting opinion because Connaker is Gestapo -- and dissention will not be tolerated. That's the American way, after all: My way or the highway! The internet is filled with boobs, and Connaker is one more of them I'm afraid. Great thing about the US though: competition. Nuf' said. ;-)

"I'm writing this on MacBook while listening to music through my MacMini. Both have impeccable styling and build, they are easy to use, and their performance is top notch. I love it when art and technology come together." ... Reminded me of something from a NY Times article of a few years ago (can't supply the URL, sorry ) quoting The Steve: "'Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,'' says Steve Jobs, Apple's C.E.O. ''People think it's this veneer -- that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.''

"... by the way, the 9.1s are intriguing and wish i could take a listen to them in boston. ..." Johnny, I have the 9.1s here, among other systems, and I am not far from greater Boston. You are welcome to come have a listen if you like. I am *not* a salesperson for the 9.1s, and I don't care if anyone else likes them or not. :-) But ... I can't figure out how to PM you, to arrange something like that. Chris, is there functionality to PM via CA?

Tim wrote: "I just think, as is so often the case in audiophile discussions, that difference is blown way out of proportion." I agree that the issue of proportion sometimes gets lost in the malaise. A $5000 Alpha DAC might be 'better' than a $400 Cambridge Audio DacMagic, strictly speaking. But with $2000 monitors? Or $5000 monitors? Just MHO, but as I've opined repeatedly, the gear 'floating point' is impossible to keep track of. One contributor, many months ago, had a ~$70,000 system. Not that that means it was particularly good, that would be a separate argument. But for those who are on a reasonable budget, and who want the most bang for their buck, seems to me the issue might be: would a $5000 DAC benefit *you*, grasshopper, with your $2000 monitors? From my experience in swapping out a $400 DAC with a $2500 DAC, with an admittedly better set of gear than $5000 monitors ... eh, not so much, if at all. ( No, in short. ) But I know as much and as little as anyone else who posts these kinds of random opinions, except those with credentials that span decades or more. And even they can be wrong, but ... I do tend to consider the source. And I appreciate knowing what the source has, for credentials. Everyone claims she/he is, is an expert on the intertubes, but based on what, exactly? Where is the resume, the vitae, and where is the list of creds? They are a starting point, and they are not necessarily meaningless.

I bet that DAC would sound darker on a nice piece of 20 year old air-dried walnut.

... seems to me, in the context of many audio publications that accept paid advertisements. The thing I find unique about his point of view is that he often points out the obvious, and often times the audio-phool ridiculous, and backs it up with measurements. Other's might feel otherwise. We all get to decide for ourselves. http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.audio.high-end/msg01981.html It would be only fair to read the many many reviews available on his site, before making too hard a judgment, or to imply that his opinions are somehow colored -- any more than any audio publication that accepts industry advertisements to maintain their viability -- just because in the '80s he was half owner in a speaker company. This is just common sense. He lauds speakers not of his making, after all. And who else would publish "The 10 Biggest Lies in Audio"? Bless his heart.

Tim, Forgot about a couple of others I have that knock my socks off in terms of realistic and dramatic dynamic range. "FROM THE AGE OF SWING" and "SWING IS HERE!" both Dick Hyman. Besides dynamics, they are otherwise some of the best, most 'live' recordings I happen to own ... http://www.referencerecordings.com/JAZZ.asp

This one does it for me ... "Stravinski, The Rite of Spring, Lorin Maazel, Cleveland, Telarc CD-80054 (powerful bass, fierce brass, spectacular)" http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Rite-Spring-Igor/dp/B0000251LY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1237320133&sr=8-1 Also, FWIW, I've picked a up a few others like the one above from this list and haven't been disappointed: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/music.htm

Fine, but that has nothing to do with a straw-man argument. Accusing someone of a straw-man argument is a rather strong thing to do, so it should be done with some reasonable amount of accuracy based on the definition of the term, not an idiosyncratic use of the term.

"although I'm not so sure that your argument isn't mostly a 'straw man' built upon your own definition of 'garbage' as opposed to what Chris' may have meant by his comment on dislike for 128k 'music'." Chris wrote: "I will never agree that 128k is anything but garbage" Straw man? Who used the term 'garbage', first?

Usernaim, I should have mentioned that I also did these tests on an AVI 9.1 system, and Linkwitz Orion system. Linkwitz includes some very nice test tracks -- your typical test track fare, solo drums, solo bass drums, breaking glass, and even what sound to me like very nicely recorded single-mike or double-mike studio tracks. I tested with some of those too, as many as I could stand. I might have permanently fried previously useful brain tissue in the process, BTW. My larger point was really: it will be a good thing if more are able to test these things themselves, against their gear/music/room/budget/taste, and whatever else enters into the equation. Especially if access to that kind of testing is inexpensive and easy to execute, if exhausting.

"ON EDIT: Hmmm...maybe not such a good plan after all. I just dropped by iTunes they still want to sell me upgrades of all my purchased music." It's been maybe a month or two ago, don't remember, but they offered my handful of long-ago downloads, upgraded to 256k for free. Maybe that was a limited time offer.

"So perhaps their master plan is to keep customers happy instead ??" Right. In the case of Apple/iTunes Store, definitely agree. I took advantage of the same offer a short time ago. Although I wasn't clear, I was thinking of the possibility of repurchasing one's current CDs in higher resolution formats, when/as those higher resolutions might be offered. The Other Master Plan, maybe, and not free.

"Hmm, maybe that's the master plan at the record labels. Get us to repurchase our libraries without even changing the format, just the resolution :~)" That's my concern. And if the difference is only in the numbers, not in what is audibly perceptible -- ala the test the Boston Audio Society conducted that I've linked to previously, or with respect to the warnings Dave Moulton makes in detail and at length on his site ... The threat of spending another small fortune for a ton 'o bits, without audible benefit ... been there, done that, with respect to spending on audio-phernalia in general. I would have to hear the benefit. I don't have any evidence for myself yet, that those bigger numbers are necessarily better. If I ever *hear* differently, I'll take the plunge. Or rather, dip a toe in, maybe. Until then ... "Trust everyone, but cut the cards." :-)

I happen to have paid the $30 for a Quicktime Pro license because I needed to make down & dirty compressed audio files some years ago. It allows exporting to a variety of codecs and rates. Rumors are that the "Pro" capability might be included with forthcoming Mac 'Snow Leopard' OS: http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/09/apple-to-integrate-quicktime-pro-features-in-snow-leopard/ If that happens, along with the Mac freebie ABXer, folks will be able to decide for themselves with a few easy clicks, from their preferred recordings, on their gear. I also picked up these headphones for reference: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reference_earphones.htm I cannot win an ABX test with some of the best recordings I happen to own, unless I dummy them way down. I have to compress them nearly to oblivion to win. I can't win between 128k AAC vs 256k AAC, VBR, or at least haven't yet -- both versions compressed from original AIFF. And I have yet to win: AIFF to 128k. I find ABX testing exhausting when there are no immediately perceptible differences -- when one knows one is doing a lotta guessing, or all guessing -- and that 20 comparisons are necessary if you're aiming at reasonable statistical probability. And I also have no practical interest in compressed files either, Apple Lossless is fine with me, I have more than enough disk space and don't use my iPhone enough for music that I need a million and one recordings on it. I'm just doing these tests for ... fun. Although I find the ABX process ... not so fun. Having said all that, from what I've decided for myself as a result of 'hearing for myself' ... I grabbed Sinatra's "Only the Lonely" album at iTunes last week, and it sounds fabulous against some of the best recordings I own -- balanced, warm, clear, clean, and detailed.