24-bit/192kHz is pointless?

[Mallette]

The comment about cymbals reminded me of an experience of a couple of years ago when I was introduced to digital amps. A discussion of those on another forum got me interested and I purchased a Panasonic SA-XR 25 reciever on Ebay for 127.00. I had no real expectations but interest. At the time, I was working on a sumulation at Fort Lost in the Woods, MO and staying in a little apartment there. I had a modest system with me using Frazier Super Monte Carlos from my collection. I hooked it up and put on Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" CD. A good recording, but not one that had blown my socks of. I was totally struck suddenly by the cymbals. They shimmered and sounded right in front of me. I realized I could not recall ever having heard them that realistically before. My home main system was at that time was Klipschorns driven by a Van Alstine Super PAS4i VT preamp and a McIntosh 250, so I had pretty good sound at home...but this was better!

 

I use this amp now to drive my main system for most use, though I have a Van Astine rebuilt ST-70 when I feel the need to cuddle with the wife in the warm glow of tubes.

 

That little amp caused me to unload ALL of my SS amps, as I believed these would flood the market within a year or two given their low cost, "greenness" and great sound. I was wrong, though I remain mystified as to why. I now have a Sonic Impact Tio PC amp card, which is awesome in a via Epia no moving parts music PC as an "all in one box" portable system and one of their T-amps.

 

Again, bit OT for this thread but I'd be interested in thoughts on an "all digital" until the speaker type system.

 

Dave

 

[PeterSt]

Choosing the proper "digital" amp (not all are real digital to the sense you mean) is a job which I (we) failed upon. Up to 18 months ago it took nearly a year to come to the conclusion that they all sound interesting, but they also all add something to the sound which should not be. Yes, we bought them all, flew them in for a last big contest, and sold them all. :-)

 

I must be cautious though;

The "we" in this case is three persons, regularly coming together to compare, in some occasions embarrassing the sales representative concerned being there also, by hooking on the "reference" tube amp near the end of the "show", explicitly telling that the chip amp concerned flawed all over. However, since the salesrep was convinced it was "our system" doing wrong to his amp, it honestly left us with some puzzles.

Also, since the whole thing was reported publically on a forum when someone tried something, other guys started to buy and ... were happy. They were happy with the amps we rejected. Hmm ...

 

Here too, I am fairly sure this is all related to the resolution your whole chain can bare. You know, all these amps have one thing in common : they are fast. Super fast.

And ... since I'm fairly sure we could hear the carrier wave (or switching phenomena which are there often, for that matter) possibly our chain was fast enough to hear the baddies of them.

 

It may sound disappointing, but what we use now is a Gain Clone (not "the", but a home brew). Yes, nothing more than a class B chip amp, but without the carrier wave and all (supporting 5 - 130K IIRC).

Super fast, using 7 Watts idle, and no additions to the sound. Suitable for high efficiency speakers only, because not more than 33 Watts RMS output.

 

Btw, this is not less (or more) "all digital" than can be, because no matter what, there's always the D/A conversion, only the way some do it, is different. Also, (IMHO) when you depend on the D/A of such an amp (like I think the SA-XR 25 does it), where to put your great DAC ? so, it cuts you from possibilities.

Next is, that when the amp doesn't perform the D/A, what actually happens is an A/D first (yep, think about that). Again, nothing I would like (from stupid theory to begin with :-).

Of course, not using something like the SA-XR 25 but claiming "all digital" requires the most decent digital volume, which is of the utmost importance when using 16 bit material.

 

I think YMMV, and these "digital" amps are tricky things anyway. They may explode themselves (Hi mr. NF), they may blow your speakers, and if not, they're always radiating your TV down the drain although this latter greatly depends on the implementation.

 

Might it help, the only chip amp I see used in my community of users is the Hypex. Coincidence or not, at the time it was designed/made expecially for us (Bruno behind the wheel). However, it took 7 months before we gave up waiting for it. So, sadly, this is the only one *we* didn't put to a test, but since 5 or so of my own customers use them (and not any of the others), I think they can do at least some job (yeah, stupid theory again).

 

Peter

 

[Mallette]

>...they're always radiating your TV down the drain although this latter greatly depends on the implementation.

 

I don't follow that. What do you mean?

 

As to the rest, it really seems to follow the experience of those in my other forum. I found, and still find it odd, that there were two kinds: "POS" and "Best amps ever." I fall in the later. I classify the sound as being as clinical as SS, but with a taste of tube warmth.

 

My expertise is in location recording and I have what I call "total acoustic recall." By that, I mean that my brain can remember precisely what I heard in a live performance indefinitely, and when I play my recording I can identify any differences between what is being reproduced and the image of the space/time event in my brain. In my case, I find absolutely no sign the SA-XR 25 is in the chain. I like that. My ST-70 does change things...for the better, though the "better" is not more accurate. No way I can explain that, nor will I try. However, I do not use it to analyze my recordings on first listen.

 

One thing I have learned is to NEVER judge what another hears. That way lies both insanity and ultimate arrogance.

 

Apologies again for being a bit OT.

 

Dave

 

[tfarney]

Peter,

 

I confess that you are often talking over my head, but I own a Panasonic XR-55 and what I think I hear is a complete lack of anything added. That isn't always a good thing. The Panny turns bad mastering into an act of brutality and is unkind to mediocre crossovers and tizzy tweeters. But it's virtues are even stronger: Absolute bass control, a non-existent noise floor and unbelievable speed, clarity and dynamics. No need to add "for the price." There is nothing mid-fi about the sound of the cheap Panny. There is also nothing warm or euphonic about it. Give me a warm, rich recording (and good speakers) and it will deliver warm, rich sound. Give me a thin, brittle recording and it will pass that through as well.

 

I think the conservative, clubby attitude of most audiophiles is the only reason why digital amplification hasn't made huge inroads into the high-end. Well, that and the fact that it is too inexpensive to make it into high end shops. Of course you can pay a lot of money for digital if you really want to, but you're buying name, casing and feature sets, not sound....

 

http://www.steinwaylyngdorf.com/

 

Achieving power and transparency through digital amplification is, evidently, just not a costly thing.

 

Where do I put my DAC? In my analog headphone system.

 

Tim

 

[Mallette]

It would appear you might disagree with my statement about the Panny's "clinical like SS but musical like tubes" statement. However, I am not so sure. It MAY be that the Panny is simply accurate and that SS is simply harsh.

 

I don't know. I DO know that I was thrilled to get my first SS amp back in 1970 to replace my Dyna SCA-30, and then equally thrilled to get back to a Dyna SCA-30 that came my way about 10 years later. It was like the first time I played an LP after a steady diet of CD's for nearly ten years. Revelation that I had been being musically starved.

 

It was that later revelation that (back OT!) led me down the path of studying digital recording techniques to find out why so little of it nourished the soul like fine analog (from any source).

 

This thread has confirmed most of my own findings as well as added to them.

 

I can now confidently state that, at least to my own satisfaction:

 

!. The FORMAT of any recording is irrelevant.

2. The ENGINEERING of any recording is all important.

3. Neither of the above matter if the playback chain is not right.

 

So, if you don't like the wine, don't blame the glass, blame the vintner.

 

Dave

 

[TheRocker]

Tom, the DVD-A "REM - In Time The Best Of REM 1988-2003" has 24/192 tracks on it.

 

[PeterSt]

>>...they're always radiating your TV down the drain although this latter greatly depends on the implementation.

 

>I don't follow that. What do you mean?

 

Oh, I am sorry to blundly shout something which nobody who doesn't know will understand.

The high frequency (to name something, by heart, between 150Mhz and 350 MHz) saw etc. wave that is used as the carrier for the amplification (and which has to be filtered out near the end of the process), creates a radiation which is almost impossible to shield off (I think the Hypex does a good job on this ?). Some of them are known to even distort the TV of the neighbours, let alone your own. But hey, who is watching television during listening these days ? and the neightbours join you with listening automatically ...

 

>I classify the sound as being as clinical as SS, but with a taste of tube warmth

 

Mwah, clinical is a positive in my dictionary, and the tube warmth IMO is just the representative of the often so tight bass these amps tend to produce. In the end, I think, all is about the speed.

 

Sometimes (and I mean, with certain types of music) these amps mask very well something which they produce very wrongly. I mean, if you perceive something like a synth sound, while actually it is a normal cello, ... whhoops.

And to follow the thread's subject : this is a phenomenon that very well "following" DAC can show just the same : totally flawing on ... well ... the proper harmonics ?

 

So this is the strange thing, and interesting thing at the same time : To my own experience it needs the reference to see through what "it" does, and that it is actually comepletely wrong, while at the very same time you originally thought it was sooo good. So this is not about distortion, it is not about wrong staging (oh, it could), but it is about being just very wrong.

The "means" I can use myself for this, is recognizing standing waves which just shouldn't be there. Or, similarly, placing yourself at the right of the right speaker (normal listening distance), and listen to what comes from the left speaker. I know, strange behiaviour, but this tells far more easy a difference in stanging, than sitting at the sweet spot.

 

>My expertise is in location recording and I have what I call "total acoustic recall."

 

Hahaha, this is great. If I'm allowed, this is what I dedicate to myself, though put a little differently : I will know for kind of ever how something sounded at a certain stage, and recall with that what was changed in order to change that sound. For my player this is of the most importance :

At a certain stage the bass was superb, then at another stage (one year later !) the highs were to everybody's satisfaction, but somewhere underway the superb bass was lost. Now, all the dozens of individual steps, including what they did to the sound, must be remapped so that all comes together in the end. Yea, a complete crazy task and job, knowing that priority #1 is not changing the bits (hence, no DSP ... *NEVER*).

 

>One thing I have learned is to NEVER judge what another hears.

 

This one is, to say so, as interesting. I just do, and have to that, knowing that I can't hear what others hear through their systems. But, although there is one common denominator only (the player) it appears not to be difficult to interpret things in the proper way. I must say though, that those who express the positives and negatives, are those who really think they know, have the equipment that allows them to know, and express for the good cause only. This goes like that automatically.

If someone tells me (and this really happened at some stage) that cymbals from Foobar in a such and so setup had better color, to me this is just a positive remark, and tells me to improve something. The "job" here is to interpret the why, and Foobar being less snappy and therefore more warm, may be the answer, but not the solution. Again to the subject : that the solution is to add more resolution may be unexpected, but is explainable anyway :

 

(don't try to folow this)

 

Thinking of the 44K1 vs. 96K story, and the in fact too high transients resulting in squares which last longer (tops, bottoms) than intended, this "roughs" the sound. Yep, we'll understand that. However, like whith adding noise to a photograph, this may enhance crispyness and even perceived better highs. It even may unveil detail which otherwise can't be heard. However, since this is really fake, *and* it is all about squares baring more energy than the sines which should be, the sound becomes cold of it.

And thus, adding resolution is the solution, which is even obvious. We must understand *why* this is needed though, and I hope this by itself is clear.

 

Since enhancing sound (the way I try to do it) is always relative to previous situations, or comparing 44K1 with 96K for that matter, it is so much important that you know what actually happened or happens when, and thus what to do in order to improve.

I know, this is in a leage I may well be in on my complete own, but for now it is my life.

 

Let me, for now :-) give one last example of to what strange phenomena this can lead to :

 

We all will know about what happens when we turn in too much treble (if we have the knob of course);

At some stage of development, somewhere in the 7K areas, "holes" started to present themselves. Say, a roughness. But, what I actually did was improving cymbals, of which someone expressed at that time that they were too much plastic. He was right, since I compared with my own drum set, and they sure could use more metal.

Right. So I achieved that.

Back to the too much treble, this will incur for just too much hissing from the tweeter. Nothing new here. Well, did you ever listen to the tweeters alone ? nah, that's some hissing only. But after this software upgrade ? not aymore !? hmm ...

I figured that the holes appearing in the mid range, could be solved by filling those holes with high frequencies. I just created a slope (passive xover) starting at 5K, ending up 16dB above normal level at the 20K end. Does anyone know how much "too loud" that is ? hahaha ... and it just worked !

Keep in mind, the main thing which "worked" is that the tweeter could bare this ridiculeous high treble input, and just *no* additional hissing came from it. What was actually the matter ?

 

The software upgrade (say, shifting jitter to other areas) must have impeeded for far more nice sines in areas where unrealistic squares couldn't be bared (remember, too much rough energy). Acoustically, indeed those additional high frequencies (themselves audible by gogs only) filled up the holes in the mid range.

Btw, what came from this in the end, is the explicit tuning of cymbals at a *realistic* SPL. Think of it : listen to your systems, and try to imagine those cymbals to be as soft as you perceive them in reality at a live (acoustical) concert. You hear them way, way too soft !! Put this drum set in the place of your speakers, and let someone smash those cymbals ... it hurts your ears of loudness ! ... but ... they should !!

 

Ok, I stop blattering around now. I didn't make a point, but for the most probable fact that if something's going on in the higher frequencies which should not be, I am the first to hear that.

 

Peter

(again sorry for the long post; won't do that anymore)

 

[PeterSt]

Tim (must keep it brief now :-)

 

>Give me a warm, rich recording (and good speakers) and it will deliver warm, rich sound. Give me a thin, brittle recording and it will pass that through as well.

 

Yes, that is how it should be. But let me add this to it :

 

The in fact one and only thing I have been doing since I use CDs, is turning the 800 out of 1000 bad recordings into 5 out of 1000. In other words, we (as general audiophools) most often don't know how the recording really was, but we are the first to state that it flawed because it doensn't sound well. Flat is the first which springs to my mind.

 

To my firm belief, 5 out of 1000 albums are so badly recorded that nothing can be made of them during playback. This, for my own sake created "fact" is just a measuring device. I mean, when 800 out of 1000 sound as bad recordings, it is just me, hence my system. It is somewhere, and I'll drop dead first in finding where it is.

So here's my statement for life :

 

In order to tune your system for the best, use the worst albums in your collection. Not the best ones !

 

Only this "attitude" will lift your system to the higher level.

 

It is exactly this why this thread interests me; Earlier today I said that 44K1 (for me) sounds better than 96K. In theory (until I find other theories :-) this cannot be true. Or *should* not be true anyway.

So I will be searching for the solution until I found it. I said it in between the lines earlier : this could well mean using a 192K 16 bit DAC. Yes, don't laugh, 16 bit. At least that exists in NOS mode ... (like Altmann).

 

 

(nice gag about the DAC)

 

 

 

[Mallette]

I am starting to feel like a hijacker, but no one has complained yet and it IS related, at least...

 

You do occupy an interesting niche. In my case, I see it as my job to capture a space-time event with as little editorializing as possible. Bear in mind that I record ONLY purely acoustic events, no electric anything involved. I will not even use a mixer. In fact, I cannot count the recordings where I can HEAR the mixer in the sense that I can tell someone has been moved. I've no explanation for this nor does it sound very scientific, but there it is. If one of my recordings fails to meet the standard of sounding as though you were sitting in the best seat in the house, it never sees the light of day. You can't fix f****d in my opinion. Everytime I ever tried, it just got worse. Finally just said "no." Have I ever demodulated some impulse noise or something in a silent spot? Of course, as I can do so without changing the timing or anything in any way...but that is it. I don't even "normalize."

 

I do not say the above is "the one true way," and I'd certainly be missing a great deal of awesome repertoire from the Beatles, Pink Floyd, et al if I looked down my nose at electric assists, synthesizers, and mixers, but I know where my interests are and that is where I stay.

 

As to the TV, it's obvious the Panny uses some other design as I have an HD set right next to it and never seen a blip on on it, or any other TV in the house.

 

Dave

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Dave - No worries about hijacking threads around here. It's a laid back site. Plus, were not talking about life and death, and answers to the world's ills :-)

 

[tfarney]

Dave,

 

I'm not big on terms like "musical." Perhaps it's just semantics, but I think music is musical, not gear. But what I think I hear in the Panny is transparency. Without playing back a recording of which I've heard the original master, that's hard to say, but it seems right. Acoustic stringed instruments, with which I'm familiar from years of playing the things, drums, yes cymbals, just sound real and present. Nothing seems to be pushed forward or recessed compared to other amps I have had access to (SS and tubes). To tell you the truth, and I know on an audiophile forum there is a lot of disagreement with this, I'm of the school of thought that says amps don't make much difference, that if we can hear them at all (given similar headroom and the same load), it's one of those things that is so subtle that it's not terribly meaningful. I even apply that to SS vs modern tube amps that are designed for accuracy, not tone (ie: most of the good ones). In fact, of all the amps I've heard, consumer and pro, mid-fi and high end, I can't recall any of them making the difference I hear in the Panny.

 

Digital is, indeed different. And the gap between it and the rest is greater than the gap between tubes and SS, greater than the gap between the average good-quality receiver and the high end. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Peter: I really couldn't disagree more. I buy most of my CDs used, and I have...ahem...aging tastes, so much of my collection is from the mid 90s, after A/D technology got mature and before the practice of compressing all of the dynamics out of music and juicing it up with boomy bass and sizzling treble became SOP in the mastering suite. As a result, I don't have a lot of really bad masters. Of course I have some recordings that are simply flat. Some that are old and a bit noisy (big fan of jazz from Charlie Parker through the mid-60s), and on the other hand, I have some that were beautifully recorded on analog or digital and lovingly mastered.

 

I wouldn't dream of tuning my system to my worst of them, because that would result in a system tuned to limit response and mask noise, bad mastering, etc. I'd much rather get all I can (even though there's a good bit I can no longer hear) from the best recordings and, if faced with a really bad one, simply adjust eq. That does put me in a difficult position sometimes, in which I'm rolling off the trebles and turning down the volume in order to make something listenable (Springsteen's "Magic" comes to mind). But if I tuned my system for that, I'd be rolling off the trebles of the good stuff as well.

 

With all of that said, I sometimes find my old, "warm" Harman Kardon integrated easier to listen to than the Panny. I'll keep it for a headphone amp.

 

Tim

 

 

 

[Mallette]

Yeah, "musical" is a throwaway for a word that really doesn't exist. Sorry about that.

 

Peter said that to him, "clinical" is a good thing. I'd put that work in the same category as "musical" it obviously can be interpreted individually. To my mind, it's like bright lights, stainless steel, and tiled floors. Somewhere you might examine music in the bright light of science. It is not description of "accuracy," but the smell of antiseptic. I don't suppose that helps much either, but there is just something about SS amps I do not like. That doesn't mean I HATE them. I still run a Denon AV-3000 in the master bedroom that powers speakers in there, the family room, and the pool. Sounds good...but I don't do really serious listening with it. Too clinical... I have a Soundcraftsman PCR800 that drives my "second" main system Frazier Model Eleven's very nicely...but I want to replace it with a Panny as well as soon as I can locate one.

 

Whatever "clinical" is, my Panny and my ST-70 aren't. But they ARE accurate.

 

Dave

 

[Daphne]

It seems this discussion is beginning to drift away from the original question.

 

Does this mean that any music that is say, above 24-bit/96kHz is pointless?

 

To get right to the point, many recording professionals and equipment designers tend to take a diplomatic path and base their answers on, "quite possibly, Yes."

 

Engineers have been working on improvements of using PCM code for more than two decades. The value of higher sampling rates has been a point of discussion and even heated debate since at least 1996. The standard 16/44.1 is adequate, but how far beyond 24/96 actually improves the sound quality is an unknown factor.

 

The following paper, "Coding High Quality Digital Audio" written by J. Robert Stuart of Meridian Audio in 1997, illustrates my point and outlines the limitations and problems with PCM code, and addresses higher sample rates.

 

http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf

 

DSD code was introduced as an alternative. However, mastering in this code has always been a problem, not to mention the debate over the quality of playback of Red Book vs. SACD.

 

Perhaps PCM code has outlasted its usefulness, but a change in code will not occur over a short period of time, regardless of how good a new coding system might be. The electronics industry is known for establishing standards everyone agrees to. A period of time must be set to establish Standards that will offer everyone competing in the industry to have an equal opportunity of playing in the sandbox. What kind of sandcastles are erected is up to the individual.

 

By the way, I hope no one here is under the false impression that PCM will continue well into the future.

 

daphne

 

[DavidJPettifor]

Excellent link Daphne, thanks. Probably take me an age to absorb the finer detail but the effort will be enjoyable and worthwhile none the less!

 

--

djp

 

[Mallette]

I haven't followed the links yet, but I HAVE switched to DSD for mastering. To my ears, it's as good as any level of PCM...and also my ears suggest that it transcode to any level of PCM transparently. I find that a big plus.

 

Not sure what others experiences are in this area, but I did synchronized blind A/B with a group of good ears between a Crystal Clear direct to disc recording of Virgil Fox against a DSD recording I'd made of it and there was zero ability to correctly ID which was which.

 

Dave

 

[tfarney]

Tonight I heard a Denon DVD player through a big Pioneer Elite receiver driving a pair of Vienna Acoustics Mozarts, playing a 16/44 digital master of a 1963 analog recording, "Getz/Gilberto."

 

It was simply stunning.

 

Tim

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

That's a great all around combination Tim. From music to speakers, just great.

 

[PeterSt]

Tim,

 

I wouldn't dream of tuning my system to my worst of them, because that would result in a system tuned to limit response and mask noise, bad mastering, etc. I'd much rather get all I can (even though there's a good bit I can no longer hear) from the best recordings and, if faced with a really bad one, simply adjust eq. That does put me in a difficult position sometimes, in which I'm rolling off the trebles and turning down the volume in order to make something listenable (Springsteen's "Magic" comes to mind). But if I tuned my system for that, I'd be rolling off the trebles of the good stuff as well.

 

Of course I didn't mean it like that. Take the example of "flat";

You can imagine (and if not, please take it from me) that tweaking your chain can create more depth, width, even height. So, a "flat" file will encourage you to start tweaking for the better.

A file which already shows all the depth needed, will obviously not encourage you to go tweaking.

And, to my experience, the good files will not get worse if the flat files got better.

 

On a side note I must mention that creating a "better" stage is a somewhat dangerous task to begin with. I mean, we often don't know how the staging originally was and hence should be.

Take for example a random (good) MP3. When properly played back (yes, this can be done badly, right, and just good -> decoding stuff) the staging of an MP3 is broader compared to the original uncompressed WAV. Now what ?

 

Btw, I stay far from anything that even smells like equalizing and all. The time I needed that is two years behind me. Not even for the subwoofers.

I think it was you referring to Lyngdorf ... not my ways. IMHO that is dealing with problems which should have been solved at the source. I know I know, you won't believe that. :-)

Oh, I have all the gear. It's catching dust now.

 

Peter

 

[BobH]

Hi Daphne - or vinyl, come to that!

 

Sorry - couldn't resist it! I wonder if, in 50 years time, 'hair shirt' audiophiles will be playing 24/192 files with antiquated computers while everyone else gets them delivered by microwave 'holo-messages' direct to their table tops in glorious 50.10 envelope sound!

 

Everything can be bettered and, by definition, higher resolution is exactly that - higher. At the moment though we seem to be going through a phase of reducing the resolution for the mass (cheap) market and increasing it for the esoteric (expensive) market. All from the same dynamically crippled, over-loud mush!

 

I can certainly see the benefit of higher than 16/44 audio files, especially when my computer is capable of replaying 24/192 files ten-at-time, should I so wish! If my brain tells me it's better, I want it!

 

[Daphne]

Hi Dave

 

Some people comment on DSD being a dead format, especially since Sony has recently lost interest. Then again, it has always been a big secret if Sony actually owned the patent or was involved in a restricted licensing agreement.

 

I can recall reading several years back when Steve Jobs entered into negotiations with Sony in an attempt to obtain rights for incorporating the DSD format into Macs, but for some unknown reason Sony would not cooperate.

 

In the past two years a new technology has emerged with the DXD format. Based on the pulse rate of DSD but multi bit. Recording in DXD with some of the new microphones available delivers unbelievable sound quality. The advantage of the DXD format is that it allows for easy mixing and mastering, and is very easy to author SACD/DSD 5.1 and also convert into a high resolution PCM files for DVD-A, or downloads.

 

There are recording studios which go through the routine of recording in DSD, then converting to PCM for mastering, only to convert again for authoring in DSD for a SACD. Others take a more practical path by recording in PCM at 24/88.2, master in PCM, then convert to DSD. But with this method, from what I understand, the final DSD pulse rate is effected by the low 88.2KHz.

 

Now DXD records, mixes, and edits in 32 bit floating point at 352.8 KHz per channel (or four times the data capture of DSD). Obviously, well beyond anything using PCM code.

 

This past Christmas I was given a CD set of Mozart Violin Concertos. Recorded using DXD in some church in Norway. It is available through 2L. Two disc set, one CD Red Book format, the other SACD stereo and SACD 5.1. One of the most remarkable Red Book CD's I have ever heard, but the SACD is even more so. I took the CD down to a Fort Lauderdale high end store and had the opportunity to listen to the 5.1. The store was burning in a system for a yacht installation (expensive snake oil service). Linn components driving four Revel Ultima Salon 2 speakers, Voice 2 center channel, and sub woofer. The sound quality and detail of each instrument was amazing. In a short time, there were eight people standing in the center of the room wondering how such a recording was made.

 

I look forward to obtaining additional SACDs that have been recorded using the DXD format. I will even be more than pleased if internet downloads sound as good as the Mozart red book CD.

 

daphne

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wish I could say more about some DXD releases coming out, but I'm not at liberty to speak up just yet. I will say there is some neat stuff coming out very soon.

 

[Mallette]

>...some of the new microphones available delivers unbelievable sound quality.

 

I don't follow this part. My favorite mike is a 1936 RCA KU-3A and I consider it inherently unimprovable.

 

No experience with DXD, but it sounds interesting. I am also interested in CODE, but I've found no technical info on it yet.

 

Dave

 

 

[tfarney]

"Btw, I stay far from anything that even smells like equalizing and all. The time I needed that is two years behind me. Not even for the subwoofers.

I think it was you referring to Lyngdorf ... not my ways. IMHO that is dealing with problems which should have been solved at the source. I know I know, you won't believe that. :-)"

 

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that you're way off point. The Lyngdorf and every other system like it, endeavor to solve problems in the room. You can, of course, believe that they don't do that job well or cause more problems than they solve. But you simply can't solve environmental acoustics problems at the playback system's source. Your answer reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the objective of the equipment.

 

Tim

 

 

[kana813]

Well said Tim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

>But you simply can't solve environmental acoustics problems at the playback system's source.

 

No Tim, again you are right. But what you don't know is that "acoustical problems" are created by the source to start with. Any and each room has far less of these problems than we all think. And since we measure through the audio chain (instead of comparing with a live band), you'll never know the difference. You blame the room, decorate it for it, and think you have solved the acoustics problems of the room.

 

Equipment, and software the same, can be judged to its merits by acoustic response alone.

If you don't believe me, I'm afraid you don't know what to listen to. It can be pointed out in 2 seconds, really (if you would be here).

 

Peter