Dirgen

I have now about 5,000 CD's in my collection and I completely agree that the great majority, say about 80%, would score three or less stars. This is a tradegy but probably an unavoidable consequence of my my addictive behaviour towards music and perhaps the nature of music itself. I first buying CD's when they first became available. At the time I had virutally no disposable income (ie pocket money only) and CD's were very expensive when you take account of inflation since then. I used to only buy a CD only if I knew it to be a great recording of a great piece of music. Even then it used to take several visits to the record shop and many listening sessions there before I actually made a purchase. My first 100 CD's were a result of serious consideration and I still believe that they are all worth 5 stars and it took me about 5 years to collect. The next 900 or so CD's were also selected with care over around 10 years but the quality also reflected the less time available to me to hang out record shops. "Trouble" started when I got my first real job, which paid well enough that I did not have to worry about the price of CD's. In fact, the only thing that preventing from from buying was that I did not know what CD's to buy. So I just bought CD's based on even the mildest recommendations from friends or reviews. I also had little time to hang out record stores but the advent of internet shopping helped to overcome this minor problem. The number of CD's went over 2,500 quickly until storage space became the limiting factor but this problem was solved by moving to a larger house. Another problem was keeping track of all the CD's but cataloging software (and later iTunes) removed this bottleneck. From a logical and financial point of view, I should have drastically reduced my buying spree. A person cannot like all music and there must be a certain finite set of 5 star music for everyone. I had probably owned over 95% of all music in existence that I would ever really like by this stage. However the problem is that once in while I came across an album that so surprised me that I am driven buy even more CD's. Who can forget the thrill of hearing their top album for the first time? Anyway two more trends fuelled my behaviour. First, the sudden glut of used CD's on the market meant that I could and did buy boxes of CD's without even looking at all the CD's that I was buying. Second,the availability of downloads meant that storage space was no longer a factor. That is how I went from 2,500 to 5,000 CD's in half the time it took me to go from 0 to 100 CD's. At the same time the quality of the collection dropped from a 5 star average to around 2 stars or so. I can still remember the first 5 CD's that I bought but I cannot remember the last 5 CD's that I bought. I would think that 80 of my top 100 albums were bought during the first phase and perhaps 5 from my last phase. This would mean a 5 star hit ratio of 80% going to 0.2%. However I am glad to have found those 5 really good albums and I like to console myself by saying that relatively speaking I probably spend a lesser percentage of income and time on buying CD's now than I used at the beginning. Besides I must have at least 1,000 CD's that should rate 4 stars or higher, which is not too bad.

lasercd - Thanks for your comments. I think you have touched upon an issue about DAC's that has been bothering me at a philosophical level. If filter setting can have such a substantial impact on the sound quality then am I listening to hardware or software? Similarly, if the DAC does not sound right, is it a problem with the hardware or have I just picked the wrong filter option? If I like the sound of a DAC, is it a well designed DAC or am I fooling myself with computer generated euphonics?

Unfortunately I am still a few replies short of a decent sample. Perhaps some numbers from Chris Connaker might revive some interest in this thread?

There are many great movie soundtracks but let me narrow the range to material written more or less specifically for the movie (or the original play), rather than a compilation of previously released material. By decade my top choices would be: South Pacific (1958) Sound of Music (1965) Rocky Horror Show (1975) or Grease (1978) Koyaanisqatsi (1982) or Purple Rain (1984) The Witch Hammer (1993) Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Tough choice - a bit like Victoria or Palestrina. But I'll go for John Williams. In fact next question - Tomas Luis de Victoria or Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina?

Ciamara - Thanks for the comment about the filters and it certainly explains the brightness. I was confused at the NYAV show because I was expecting a far more neutral sound given the reputation (and the costs) of the Bricasti. These filter options certainly makes computer audiophile a more interesting hobby. I get the feeling that the filtering options make a substantial impact to sound quality but they are not usually detailed in reviews so much as the purely hardware aspects of a DAC. Am I correct in thinking that even the DAC's without a filtering option have a filter that is specific to a given DAC?

I do enjoy a glass of Scotch whisky with my music but I never keep any blended whisky in my bar, except the Cutty Sark 25 year old. I think the last time I had Johnny Walker was back in the 80's. Anyway I had a glass of Glenmorangie Nectar d'Or. This is a highland single malt which I picked from a whisky tasting a a few years ago, along with a bottle of Glenmorangie Signet. Glenmorangie has been rather innovative, perhaps to the point of being excessive, in bring out new editions and these two are no exception. The Nectar d'Or is matured in sauternes casks giving it the expected citrus and honey taste (quite interesting) with a lingering honey finish (a bit too heavy for my tastes). In musical terms I would say that it was more suited to Franz von Suppe than say Miles Davis. Not really my style but given that I have it already, I will keep it for the moment.

wdomeika - I think your metric is great. It's a bit late to include it in this survey but I will certain reflect it in the next version. ringenesherre - I will start my analysis as soon as I have a few more sample. Hopefully I will have something to report in a week. wgscott - Using income as the denominator makes sense but I did not use it to allow for the global nature of the CA membership. Using something like the car would allow for difference in purchasing power parity. Also I was sensitive to the possibility of being able to reverse engineer people's income from the ratio. Paul.Raulerson - There is nothing wrong with beer per se as a measure but I was concerned that not everyone drinks and even those who do may not prefer beer. Thank you for your interest and let me know if you have any other questions.

wgscott - First of all, these metrics have some meaning but they are for fun rather than scientific knowledge. I would be the first to acknowledge that the problem with ratios is that they break down at certain ranges; misleading if the range of the variables are not equivalent; and work best with linear distribution. However I choose ratios because I thought that measuring relative values would be more meaningful than absolute values. For example a person A has a $50,000 audio system and a $200,000 car. A person B has a $5,000 system and a $10,000 car. Person A certainly has a better audio but is he more interested in audio or is he simply more rich? Person B has a more modest system but he certainly chose to spend relatively more of his money on audio. In other words this measures relative audiophile tendancies. [Obvious problem - where you live and what you do will have impact on your automobile needs] orgel - A similar logic would apply to the cables. The importance of analogue cables is well established but there is a lot of debate about whether digital cables are so important. Therefore if the ratio is high then the person is more likely to aware of this issue and would spend more on digital cables than someone who was not aware of this issue. This would indicate relative computer audiophile tendancies. [Obviously problem - a ratio close to 1.0 could mean either you care greatly about digital cables or not at all, relative to analogue cables] There is a bunch of metrics and they grouped to show relative interest in music, audio, and computer audio. I did not make this explicit at the beginning but it should be fairly obviously. Anyway please feel free to make any suggestions and add any comments if you feel the need to explain certain numbers.

Thank for all the replies - the results are looking very interesting so far. To further clarify the metrics I would like to add the following: Hours listening to audio system should include listening with other people (including wife) if it is listening, rather than background music to talking. Also don't forget if you are not married this can include your best friend, soulmate, etc. The Price of digital cable/ Price of speakers metric was intended to see the relative investment in cables. However I think I made a mistake in that nearly everyone must have pretty good speakers and the results are rather homogenous. Therefore I must propose alternatives: Price of digital cable/ Price of analogue interconnects = 0.20 [analogue interconnect should be the current or the most recent one used between the CDP and the amp] Once I get a decent sample size, I will do a statistical analysis.

I was browsing through CA recently and I read a comment saying jokingly that a definition of an audiophile was a person whose audio system cost more than his car. For some reason this comment stuck in my mind and it got me thinking if one could quantitatively define a (computer) audiophile. Obviously this cannot be a serious effort but I thought it would be fun to come up with some metrics and see where I would be on the audiophile scale: Price of audio system/ Price of car = 0.18 Price of audio system/ Total cost of music purchased = 0.11 Price of digital source/ Price of audio system = 0.25 Price of digital cable/ Price of speakers = 0.01 Number of digital songs/ Total number of songs = 1.00 Hours listening to audio system/ Hours talking to wife = 2.86 Number of posts to CA/ Time since registration to CA (months) = 5.4 I think the in general, the higher number I indicates a greater degree of audiophilia, although I am not sure where the cut off point for computer audiophilia would be. For clarification here are some general definitions: Price - the price actually paid at the time of purchase (whether new or second hand) Total cost of music purchased – price of all the LPs, CDs, HD downloads, etc Digital source – includes laptop, music server, DAC, but NOT cables Digital cable – USB, optical or coaxial, depending on your system Digital songs – CD rips as well as downloads Hours listening to audio system – not necessary critical listening but also not listening while doing something else Hours talking to wife – could be spouse or any significant other I would be interested in how my fellow CA members score and also please feel free to add any other metrics. Enjoy!

Not all excellent in terms of musicality but some of the best produced/recorded electronica & dance albums would include The Chemical Brothers - Surrender Deep Dish - Yoshiesque Edgar Froese - Aqua Leftfield - Leftism Orbital - The Middle Of Nowhere Royksopp - Melody AM DJ Tiesto - In Search Of Sunrise 2 Martina Topley-Bird - Anything Underworld - Second Toughest In The Infants Zero 7 - Simple Things

Sorry about the confusion - I was thrown off by the sign saying Ciamara. Even so I cannot understand why I spelt it with two "R's". Must be the jet lag. By the way, do you know what the component on the bottom shelf might be?

I heard the Bricasti M1 at the NY Audio Show last week (*). My first thoughts was how similar it looked to the Mark Levinson house style. In fact I thought that it was a new Mark Levinson until I went up for a closer look. The Bricasti was set up with Viola electronics and Ciamarra speakers. I am not sure about what cables and interfaces were used but the perhaps the attached photo might be helpful. I was comparing the Bricasti systems with my memory of the Weiss (DAC202) and Linn (Klimax/Akurate) so my views are hardly scientific but I had mixed feeling about the Bricasti. The strengths of the Bricasti is the resolution and soundstaging. The clarity and the accuracy of the positioning of the instruments was remarkable. On the downside, I felt that the overall sound was a bit too bright, perhaps even harsh. Perhaps this is the price of listening to older recordings in a high resolution system. Changing the subject, the biggest surprise of the show for me was the Walker Proscenium turntable. I was shocked by how good vinyl could sound. I used to think that vinyl lovers were reactionary dinosaurs but I was mistaken - dinosaurs perhaps but not so reactionary. Anyway I am still committed to computer audio as it is unbeatable in terms of convenience and value but in terms of absolute sound quality, it still needs improvement. I hope that the hardware as well as properly made recordings will be available soon. (*) I would have liked to go to the Stereo Exchange as well but I was on a business trip and all my meetings were mid-town.

I use iTunes for ripping with about 5,000 rips so far but never had nay problems like that. There were less than 5 cases where I had nasty static, etc but I was getting the same static when I checked with 2 different CD players. It was probably that the original disc had CD rot or something.