This is where the lack of understanding what Nyquest was saying comes in. We don't listen to the D/A waveform directly.
When that waveform is put through an anti-aliasing filter, which it is, the waveform looks EXACTLY as it did before the sampling took place.
Yes, things are done to make the waveform more closely approximate the original, sure. And in theory, it should be 'good enough'. To many people on mid-fi systems, it is. But my ears consistently tell me a different story.
I have no vested interest in finding CD and its sampling rate wanting, Mel... in fact, when CD first hit the scene, I thought it was extremely coo'. But then someone sat me down in front of a good 'table on a good system, and left me alone to A-B it against CD. That converted me. I wish CD really was 'all that', it would be a heckuva lot cheaper.
Quote:
Sony invented SACD for one purpose. To continue to collect licensing fees, and royalties. The income stream for them, and Phillips, was coming to an end as their patents on the CD were rapidly running out. That was a several hundred million a year loss, and is one of the reasons why Sony's profits fell so much in the last few years.
They had to come up with a reason for this new format, and your charts were one of the ways they thought they could do it. Few bit.
I'm aware of the history. Doesn't mean its not a better sounding format.
Quote:
There is a lot of hype involved in hi end audio. One of these is the 24/96 (or higher) myth. John Ergle, one of the most respected producers, engineers, and all around gurus in the music industry for many years, maintained, as have many others, that anything over 20/48 is a waste for playback, and I concur. In the demo's that I went to at Sony, I, and the others there, heard little, if any improvement in SACD over CD. How much of that could be attributed to the new process, and how much to better attention to the mastering, I don't know, but in listening to many SACD's, as well as DVD Audio, I'm convinced that neither does much.
Congrats. You've restated the old truism... audio is subjective.
Quote:
Nope. Mine are spotless as well. But that is only the part that we have control over.
Then why the mention of 'dirt'?
Quote:
Mechanical engineering is at a very high level these days. Once you get to a certain point, it's less of an improvement then it is the art of convincing your possible buying public that something intangible is going on. In looking closely at a large number of turntables over the years, I've come to the conclusion that $5,000 is the point where, including arm, you pretty much see a tailing off of any value. And that is pretty darn expensive. In cartridges, I feel at just over $1,000 is the point of tailoff.
I'd tend to agree. Anyone spending more than $10K on their entire analog front-end is overdoing it, even by audiophile standards.
Quote:
I knew Joe Grado for many years. He invented the moving coil cartridge. But, he abandoned it many years ago. He said that it was invented in response to the poor hi frequency response of all the equipment out the in the late '50's, which he includes the Lp of its day. Once everything improved seriously, in the early '60's, he saw no point to them. But, the most expensive cartridges today are still moving coils.
Yes, many of the cartridges Grado makes today are based on something called 'moving iron'. The guy's a legend, deservedly so. He had a $20 cartridge back in the day that sounded as good or better than cartridges costing ten times as much.
That said, the best cartridge I ever heard was a $650 (at the time) Koetsu Black Gold moving coil.
Quote:
I still have my old Technics SL 1100A, with a Joe Grado modified Technics arm, with his own wire, and a Grado Signature cartridge. I have always found that table to be better than most anything else out there.
Whoa... I guess I called it with my prior 'high end Technics table' comment. I remember that table as being well-made, certainly, but not up among the best-sounding. There's a lot of 'tables I'd take over it. But as I said, audio is subjective, and at least it doesn't have Technics' 'tan-genital' tracking.
Quote:
Audiophiles are a strange lot.
This is news?
Quote:
Well, I don't find that to be true.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
Quote:
Honestly, I've never liked belt drives. That is one of the WORST ways to drive a turntable. My old Technics is (direct drive, NOT the disco model, but the manual model), I'll warrent, better than most of what is out there now.
Pity. Is belt-drive what's kept you away from the really good-sounding 'tables, like the Linn Sondek and Michell Gyrodec? That said, the Goldman Studietto and Studio were direct drive, and they were awesome.
In my experience, both belt- and direct-drive can produce awesome 'tables.
Quote:
The Linns have always had their defenders, and their detractors. It's considered to be the first "modern", by the high end definition, turntable.
Hmm... thought the Acoustics Research, or 'AR', was. Well, ok, you're talking high-end.. in that case, yes, Linn.
Quote:
It adds more of its own sound to the mix than more recent tables do though. It's always been sensitive to ambient conditions. But, I know people who swear by it, in most of its upgraded forms.
Yeah. You should check out the Fremer review, if you haven't already. I had one for a few years, it definitely is 'all that'.
Quote:
I listen to music on my computer through Grado SR225 headphones. They're pretty good, but aren't overdoing it. When I've done music work on my machines, I have to listen through several different sources.
Figure 1 is of the analog source that's being sampled (a sine wave in this case- a musical waveform would be far more complex).
Figure 2 shows the timeslices where the analog waveform is being digitally sampled.
Figure 3 shows the waveform that's reproduced from the digital information. Note how it approximates, but is obviously different from, the original analog waveform? The difference between the two waveforms is what could be described as inaccuracy or distortion, and can explain why some people find digital audio tiring to listen to for long periods of time. This is what happens when the digital sampling rate is too low. \
But increase the number of samples, and you can approximate the analog waveform much more closely and accurately.
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
The reason why those other formats exist is for music production where you might have to slow down or pitch shift a performance. 44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
Her $100 price target for AAPL (where the stock will go in 6 or 12 months) is not related to a slight change in gross margin.
If someone thinks that a valuation does not have anything to do with gross margins (and thus a change in it), they don't know a whole heckuva lot about valuation!
There's another one that I wrote about in some of the music magazines.
Imagine having a way that someone's experience can be transfered, and stored.
We might have people who go to events as human recorders, with their own feelings, concepts, and different abilities in hearing.
We would then rent, or buy, recordings made from their live experience, and through some sort of cap, experience exactly what they did, with, of course, our own personalities interpreting it just as we do now to a recording...
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
10 KHz would still be in the range of human hearing.
Quote:
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
That's the theory, anyway.
Quote:
44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
For most people on most systems, 44.1 KHz is fine, just as 128 kpbs AAC is 'fine' for many people (I myself have an iPod for working out and casual rock listening). But A-B 44.1 KHz digital against good analog on a true audiophile system, and I think you'll be in for a rude awakening. I certainly was... and I used to believe that CD really was 'perfect sound forever', as it was pitched when introduced.
If someone thinks that a valuation does not have anything to do with gross margins (and thus a change in it), they don't know a whole heckuva lot about valuation! That said, it was merely meant to be a joke..... :-(
The gross margin for the current quarter did not lead to the $100 price target, Ebeling raised her price target from $93 to $100 but it was four months ago (due to optimism about the iPhone).
And in your example the change in gross margin was only 0.3% anyway. Okay, I didn't get the joke.
The point is that it's such a fast frequency that small errors in representing it are irrelevant.
That's not what audiophiles have been hearing for the last 25 years. In fact, the consensus is that digital has more problems the higher in frequency you go(!). \
However, it is most noticeable in the upper midrange and low treble, because more music is there than in the high treble, and the human ear is especially sensitive to such frequencies.
Look, I've had stats and theory and "it should be perfect" quoted at me for decades on this one. I know the arguments, and I know what I'm hearing. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Yes, things are done to make the waveform more closely approximate the original, sure. And in theory, it should be 'good enough'. To many people on mid-fi systems, it is. But my ears consistently tell me a different story.
I'll bet, that when it comes down to it, you can't hear the difference.
Quote:
I have no vested interest in finding CD and its sampling rate wanting, Mel... in fact, when CD first hit the scene, I thought it was extremely coo'. But then someone sat me down in front of a good 'table on a good system, and left me alone to A-B it against CD. That converted me. I wish CD really was 'all that', it would be a heckuva lot cheaper.
The first CD players had a small problem that was cured with dithering after a year or so after the first players came out.
The first recordings also had problems. Many recording engineers were recording as though the final mixdown would be done for Lp, and so some, esp from DG, were very "hard" sounding, eg. too much treble.
Another problem they found was that too many times, the digital mixes were being converted to analog several times on its way to the stamping presses. This caused all sorts of problems. The analog mixdowns and level compensations being made degraded the sound appreciably.
Even later, when that wasn't being done anymore, it was found that often, the production engineers at the pressing plants were still doing it! They would take the DLT and D/A it so that they could listen to it, and then A/D'd it back!
That's not done any longer.
The last big issue had to do with mixdowns. After it was realized that going analog to mixdown was causing problems, after a year, or so, they went to digital consoles. So far, so good. But, what they didn't realize, was that those consoles, being 16 bits, were clipping off bits on either the top end, or the bottom end, depending on how a track was level adjusted. A 16 bit recording, therefore, could have tracks that contained anywhere from 12 to 16 bits—in the same mix! Not good.
That was why Sony came up with the 24/96 console. Except for going to 96 bits (I'll explain later, if you want me too), this solved that problem. Mixing could be done in the 24 bit space, and brought to the 16 bit space later without causing problems. That made a big improvement.
Unfortunately, it also let some to think that "more is better".
while that's true to a certain extent, it doesn't extend to 24/96, which is way out of the range that any audio system can deliver, even if we could hear the difference.
[quote]
I'm aware of the history. Doesn't mean its not a better sounding format.{/quote]
Being aware of something doesn't mean that one appreciates, or understands the lessons to be gained from it.
Quote:
Congrats. You've restated the old truism... audio is subjective.
Yes, so is the Placebo effect. One out of three audiophiles will insist they hear something, when they didn't.
Quote:
Then why the mention of 'dirt'?
Because it's in the mother, the stampers, and everywhere else. My Lp's may be spotless, but if I put them under my binocular scope, I can see small particles that will never wash off under any normal conditions even after using a cleaning machine. I proved that to some skeptics at a meeting, where we used a VPI machine to clean the Lp's first.
Quote:
I'd tend to agree. Anyone spending more than $10K on their entire analog front-end is overdoing it, even by audiophile standards.
I certainly think so, but I know others that would argue with both of us about it, and insist on using tubes for the phono front end.
Quote:
Yes, many of the cartridges Grado makes today are based on something called 'moving iron'. The guy's a legend, deservedly so. He had a $20 cartridge back in the day that sounded as good or better than cartridges costing ten times as much.
That said, the best cartridge I ever heard was a $650 (at the time) Koetsu Black Gold moving coil.
All of their cartridges today are moving iron, which he developed over a long time, after he abandoned the moving coil.
I don't like moving coils (and he didn't either) for two reasons. One, of course, is the low output, which requires a stage with lots of voltage amplification, resulting in too much noise, and other problems with the loading, which is critical.
The other problem is the high tracking force. Once you get much above 1.25 grams, you start to wear out the vinyl too quickly. Even today, many of the "best", and highest priced moving coils track at around 2.5 grams. Way too high.
Lastly, the ultrasonic resonanse, which gives them their extended high frequency response, while lower, and better controlled than in the old days, still can cause problems.
Quote:
Whoa... I guess I called it with my prior 'high end Technics table' comment. I remember that table as being well-made, certainly, but not up among the best-sounding. There's a lot of 'tables I'd take over it. But as I said, audio is subjective, and at least it doesn't have Technics' 'tan-genital' tracking.
Well, you didn't call much of anything. If I were like some people, I would just lie about it to make you happy, but I don't do that.
I don't mind disagreeing with you about this. I belong to three audio groups here in New York, and most people who have come here, and kistened to the analog front end have been very happy with it. It's nust the audiophile "can't tweek it" prejudice that prevented direct drives from taking over that part of the industry.
It's funny, because in every other indusrty where stability, accuracy of speed, low rumble and wow and flutter is concerned, direct drive has eliminated belt drives from the feild. Only audiophiles, with their insistence on old technology, have belt drives continued to be the norm.
Quote:
This is news?
To many audiophiles, yes.
Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
Quote:
Pity. Is belt-drive what's kept you away from the really good-sounding 'tables, like the Linn Sondek and Michell Gyrodec? That said, the Goldman Studietto and Studio were direct drive, and they were awesome.
I think the arm is far more a factor than the turntable is. Many of those popular turntables ran 1% fast. I can only guess, and their designers wouldn't tell me, that it was intentional. It seems that some audiophiles like the slightly faster models. They describe the sound from those as having "pace", and "rhythm". If you slow the tables down externally, to the proper speed, those qualities disappear. So, again. perfection seems to have little meaning to some.
Quote:
In my experience, both belt- and direct-drive can produce awesome 'tables.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all belt tables are bad. I'm not. I'm saying that direct drive can produce far more of what tables have always tried to have, at a lower cost. You might notice that table manufacturers rarely, if ever, give out specs for their tables these days. It's because they have reached the mechanical limits for those devices, and showing specs, would only serve to prove that lesser tables are equal to the very high end models.
When I buy a new model, I'll have to end up with a belt as well. There's little choice these days about that, and I would want tp buy one from a manufacturer that will be around for a while, and one I also know. I'll likely buy a VPI.
Quote:
Hmm... thought the Acoustics Research, or 'AR', was. Well, ok, you're talking high-end.. in that case, yes, Linn.
A friend of mine still has the Ar, though he hasn't used for many years. As a matter of fact, I still have my Dual 1009, which I bought in '65, when I was 15. I got an ADC Mark 4 10/E. An excellent cartridge.
Quote:
Yeah. You should check out the Fremer review, if you haven't already. I had one for a few years, it definitely is 'all that'.
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
The reason why those other formats exist is for music production where you might have to slow down or pitch shift a performance. 44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
I didn't get into that, but yes, that sampling rate leads to at 20 KHz? 2 samples per wave! Or, 44 KHz.
10 KHz would still be in the range of human hearing.
That's the theory, anyway.
For most people on most systems, 44.1 KHz is fine, just as 128 kpbs AAC is 'fine' for many people (I myself have an iPod for working out and casual rock listening). But A-B 44.1 KHz digital against good analog on a true audiophile system, and I think you'll be in for a rude awakening. I certainly was... and I used to believe that CD really was 'perfect sound forever', as it was pitched when introduced.
.
I always have found it to be interesting that some audiphiles have tuened audio into the new religion.
You can say anything you want, without having to prove any of it, even if it's impossible.
That's not what audiophiles have been hearing for the last 25 years. In fact, the consensus is that digital has more problems the higher in frequency you go(!). \
Be accurate. This is what SOME audiophiles think. Not the majority.
Quote:
However, it is most noticeable in the upper midrange and low treble, because more music is there than in the high treble, and the human ear is especially sensitive to such frequencies.
Look, I've had stats and theory and "it should be perfect" quoted at me for decades on this one. I know the arguments, and I know what I'm hearing. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
.
25 years ago, when the format first came out, it was still a learning process. There were errors that were made, as I documented, but those have been corrected.
Unfortunately, there has been no corresponding improvement in the analog portion.
Nothing is going to be perfect. We can't even discuss that.
I always have found it to be interesting that some audiphiles have tuened audio into the new religion.
You can say anything you want, without having to prove any of it, even if it's impossible.
You mean like what they used to say about global warming?
Audio isn't a religion for me Mel, or even most audiophiles I know. It's more an adjunct to music, something many people feel passionate about. And I'm surprised, frankly, that you call yourself an audiophile of sorts, apparently know some folks in the industry, and yet seem to feel a tiny bit hostile towards them, or at least some of them. At least that's what I'm hearing between the lines here. Perhaps you find their stubbornness irritating. I can understand that.
However, while I can understand you disagreeing with and perhaps being irritated by them, cracks about religion don't really have much place here. I get where you're coming from Mel, but there's really no reason to get ugly about it. \
I also think that there are some things about audio that are less well-understood than we'd like to believe, and that audiophiles aren't 'just imagining things', even though some technical types insist otherwise. Ah well, buy what makes you happy, right?
Be accurate. This is what SOME audiophiles think. Not the majority.
The majority of audiophiles I've met say much the same thing on the matter. And I've never, ever had someone come up to me and say, "Wow, CD's high-end sure whomps the crud out of my awesome $10K analog front end!"
This is over the past 25 years, mind you. So no, I don't feel a particular need to qualify myself here. \
I'll bet, that when it comes down to it, you can't hear the difference.
I dunno Mel... I have pretty awesome ears.
But spill... what exactly would you compare to (master recordings?), and under what conditions? That does make a huge difference.
Quote:
[history of digital recording blunders]
Impressive stuff, Mel. Some of that I knew, but not all, and you are fascinating to talk to on this subject. But let me ask you... with all of this stuff allegedly completely 'fixed' at this point, why then do you think so many audiophiles still prefer a top-notch analog front-end to digital?
Quote:
Being aware of something doesn't mean that one appreciates, or understands the lessons to be [gained from it.
I could not agree more.
Quote:
Yes, so is the Placebo effect. One out of three audiophiles will insist they hear something, when they didn't.
Ugh. I've heard this old saw for 25 years now. It's overstated.
What I find more often than any placebo effect are poor A-B comparison set-ups where audiophiles are supposed to listen to unfamiliar music on unfamiliar systems in an unfamiliar environment for a relatively brief period of time. Under those circumstances, good luck getting valid data back.
Quote:
Because it's in the mother, the stampers, and everywhere else. My Lp's may be spotless, but if I put them under my binocular scope, I can see small particles that will never wash off under any normal conditions even after using a cleaning machine. I proved that to some skeptics at a meeting, where we used a VPI machine to clean the Lp's first.
Not to mention label shreds from recycled vinyl in poorer-quality records. Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
I certainly think so, but I know others that would argue with both of us about it, and insist on using tubes for the phono front end.
Ugh. Tube amps seem to pair MUCH better with digital, not phono. But I have never lived with a good tube amp for an extended period of time, so I'll withhold judgement.
Quote:
All of their cartridges today are moving iron, which he developed over a long time, after he abandoned the moving coil.
I don't like moving coils (and he didn't either) for two reasons. One, of course, is the low output, which requires a stage with lots of voltage amplification, resulting in too much noise, and other problems with the loading, which is critical.
The other problem is the high tracking force. Once you get much above 1.25 grams, you start to wear out the vinyl too quickly. Even today, many of the "best", and highest priced moving coils track at around 2.5 grams. Way too high.
Lastly, the ultrasonic resonanse, which gives them their extended high frequency response, while lower, and better controlled than in the old days, still can cause problems.
I love that guy. If there's an 'Audiophile Hall of Fame', he belongs in it.
Still, don't hate me Joe G (or Mel), but I looove the sound you get from the best moving coils... it's addicting. And the tracking force on a Koetsu Black Gold Line is only around 1.5 grams or so... not too bad.
Quote:
Well, you didn't call much of anything. If I were like some people, I would just lie about it to make you happy, but I don't do that.
I don't mind disagreeing with you about this. I belong to three audio groups here in New York, and most people who have come here, and kistened to the analog front end have been very happy with it. It's nust the audiophile "can't tweek it" prejudice that prevented direct drives from taking over that part of the industry.
I could see that being a factor, but how do you explain the guys who won't let go of their direct-drive Goldman Studiettos and Studios until you pry their cold, dead, fingers off of them?
I think 'philes like to tweak stuff, but in the end, sound always matters most. And while there have been stellar direct drive 'tables, there haven't been too many of them. Hate to admit it, but the British belt-drive 'table makers got it really right, and seemed to come out with the lion's share of great 'tables.
Quote:
It's funny, because in every other indusrty where stability, accuracy of speed, low rumble and wow and flutter is concerned, direct drive has eliminated belt drives from the feild. Only audiophiles, with their insistence on old technology, have belt drives continued to be the norm.
Let go of the stats and just listen, Mel. I mean, you know the arguments as well or better than I... direct-drive 'tables have the motor in more direct contact with the platter, resulting in more vibration, which makes it harder to get fine information off the record. Belt-drive isolates the motor from the platter better. But it has other weaknesses, of which you are no doubt aware. Both technologies can produce great-sounding 'tables.
Quote:
It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
Agreed.
Quote:
I think the arm is far more a factor than the turntable is.
I dunno Mel... the way I was always taught by Keith Yates (who used to run one of the very best audiophile shops on the West Coast years back, in Sacramento) was that the 'table mattered most of all, then the arm, then the cartridge. Without great isolation from the 'table, the fine information in the groove was going to be swamped, and nothing else after that in the chain would much matter. It beared out in practice quite well... my used Linn Sondek with even a Basik arm would consistently whomp the crap out of 'good, but a step down' 'tables with superior arms.
If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the best 'table I could afford, and then have a good, but lower-end arm and cartridge, figuring I could always upgrade later.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all belt tables are bad. I'm not. I'm saying that direct drive can produce far more of what tables have always tried to have, at a lower cost. You might notice that table manufacturers rarely, if ever, give out specs for their tables these days. It's because they have reached the mechanical limits for those devices, and showing specs, would only serve to prove that lesser tables are equal to the very high end models.
True audiophiles don't much care about those kind of specs, Mel. You gotta sit down and LISTEN.
Quote:
When I buy a new model, I'll have to end up with a belt as well. There's little choice these days about that, and I would want tp buy one from a manufacturer that will be around for a while, and one I also know. I'll likely buy a VPI.
Not a bad 'table at all, but I'd recommend spending some significant face time with a Linn Sondek or Michell GyroDec, perhaps a Goldman if you can find one used that's been well kept-up.
Quote:
A friend of mine still has the Ar, though he hasn't used for many years. As a matter of fact, I still have my Dual 1009, which I bought in '65, when I was 15. I got an ADC Mark 4 10/E. An excellent cartridge.
*wishes he had an AR, it's a magnificent piece of history*
You mean like what they used to say about global warming?
Audio isn't a religion for me Mel, or even most audiophiles I know. It's more an adjunct to music, something many people feel passionate about. And I'm surprised, frankly, that you call yourself an audiophile of sorts, apparently know some folks in the industry, and yet seem to feel a tiny bit hostile towards them, or at least some of them. At least that's what I'm hearing between the lines here. Perhaps you find their stubbornness irritating. I can understand that.
I've been around audio since the mid '60's, when I was a teenager and went to the stereo shows in Manhattan. I've been an audiophile for that long. As a teenager back then, the big names in the business would like to talk to me when I came around, because they saw someone who would grow into it. so I got to know a number of them. I was lucky.
I saw a lot of integrity in the business back then, and over the years, I've seen less and less. So, sure, I have some hostility towards a disturbing trend that I saw start. It's a shame really, because it has led nowhere.
The problem is that there is no longer any way for someone to call for standards, repeatability, or any other scientific progress in the hi end of the field, because we are shouted down by the " I hear it, I really do" crowd, who want to *believe*.
I see it in the $20,000 battery powered cables, in the $350,000 5 watt single ended tube amps, in the $90,000 turntables, $15,000 moving coil cartridges and $20,000 tube phono stages. I see it with the ideas of hanging your speaker cables from the ceiling with fishing twine, or lifting them off the floor with $1,000 ceramic cups.
Should I go on?
I remember the beginning to all of this nonsense.
A little story.
A fair time ago in the late '60's, a guy named J. Gordon Holt was upset that his new transistor amp sounded "hard", and gave him a headache. He felt that no one was listening to him, so he quit his job at Esquire, and started a magazine called Stereophile. In that, he expounded that he, and others, because there WAS a problem, were "hearing something that they aren't measuring".
He was right! A couple of years later by 1970, or so, they found a distortion they called TIM transient intermodulation distortion. Tube amps didn't seem to have it because tube had poor high frequency response, and were "slow". They never though of checking for it before.
In a little bit over a year later, manufacturers has fixed that problem, and we haven't been bothered by it ever since.
Story over, right?
No!
He confided in me during the late '70's that he wasn't sure where to take his mag at that point, but he came up with an idea to extend his first concept.
It was simple! He changed his proposition to: "We can hear things that they can't measure."
Now this was really something!
Unfortunately, to his chagrin, because he is really a nice guy, and didn't really expect this, people started to come out of the woodwork. Before you knew it, companies, and individuals, began making all sorts of claims that couldn't be proven. But, that was all right you see, because no one had to prove anything anymore, because Gordon said they didn't, and he was the guru.
Prices went up, performance went down, and it hasn't stopped yet. Of course, the industry is dying, but that just pushes prices even higher, and claims get more mystical every day.
When we made a study in the early '90's with a live comparison, and made changes to components for each stage of the tests,and at the end, where we explained what we had done, and told the subjects that we made no change during one of the sequences, several people involved accused us of lying. They were so sure they heard a difference, they would rather accuse us of that, then accept that there was nothing done. They heard it, and so it must be.
It's always interesting to note that the vast majority of audiophiles will not make a pronouncement about the sound of something without first knowing the particulars of what they are listening to. They are afraid to say the wrong thing, so they have to know what they are listening to first.
This is why I'm a bit testy about all of this.
Quote:
However, while I can understand you disagreeing with and perhaps being irritated by them, cracks about religion don't really have much place here. I get where you're coming from Mel, but there's really no reason to get ugly about it. \
Please, it's not a crack. Even the audio mags themselves, such as Stereophile TAS, and others, have said that. It's not a hidden secret, and I'm not the first one proposing it. Many in my groups agree.
Quote:
I also think that there are some things about audio that are less well-understood than we'd like to believe, and that audiophiles aren't 'just imagining things', even though some technical types insist otherwise. Ah well, buy what makes you happy, right?
.
We all hear differently. But, it's been shown that just as there are optical illusions, there are audio ones as well.
We all know of the optical illusion where there is a white sheet with black squares lined up on it in a pattern, of, say, four squares across by five down, with white space between the squares.
What happens when we stare at that?
We see grey lines appear from the corners of the squares, connecting them. That comes and goes. It happens because our brain tries to connect the squares, our conscious mind knows they don't exist, and tells us not to see them, so they go away. But, the instant we lose concentration, they come back.
Come back, go away, come back go away. Over and over. No matter how long we look, they come back and then go away.
It's believed that our brain sees those squares as leaves, and is trying to connect them into a recognizable shape, such as a branch, or possibly a bush.
It's how our minds work. we take what we don't know, and try to impose upon it what we do know, to try to make sense of it.
The same thing happens with our hearing. Our brain makes us think we are hearing something that we aren't. It comes and goes, but we can't place it.
Different people are affected differently by these optical and audio illusions.
The majority of audiophiles I've met say much the same thing on the matter. And I've never, ever had someone come up to me and say, "Wow, CD's high-end sure whomps the crud out of my awesome $10K analog front end!"
This is over the past 25 years, mind you. So no, I don't feel a particular need to qualify myself here. \
Yes, I'm picturing Elmer Fudd, or possibly Dumbo. Just kidding.
Quote:
But spill... what exactly would you compare to (master recordings?), and under what conditions? That does make a huge difference.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please reword that?
Quote:
Impressive stuff, Mel. Some of that I knew, but not all, and you are fascinating to talk to on this subject. But let me ask you... with all of this stuff allegedly completely 'fixed' at this point, why then do you think so many audiophiles still prefer a top-notch analog front-end to digital?
I've been around the field a long time. It used to be a fairly small field, so one could get to know almost everyone.
I don't account for taste. That's everyones right.
Quote:
I could not agree more.
Oh, this could get ugly!
Quote:
Ugh. I've heard this old saw for 25 years now. It's overstated.
What I find more often than any placebo effect are poor A-B comparison set-ups where audiophiles are supposed to listen to unfamiliar music on unfamiliar systems in an unfamiliar environment for a relatively brief period of time. Under those circumstances, good luck getting valid data back.
Sure, there have been poor A/B tests, but there have been some good ones as well. But, there is no evidence that long term listening is any better. Any differences either get amplified, or minimized over the long term. We also have almost no long term audio memory. After five minutes it's gone. Not the emotional memory, but the actual memory of the sound. That's why we need to write down what we are hearing as we hear it.
Quote:
Not to mention label shreds from recycled vinyl in poorer-quality records. Thanks for clarifying.
Sure.
Quote:
Ugh. Tube amps seem to pair MUCH better with digital, not phono. But I have never lived with a good tube amp for an extended period of time, so I'll withhold judgement.
You know, matter of taste. I NEVER argue with someone if they tell me that they have put together the system of their dreams, no matter what it may consist of, and listening to music is far better for them now then it has ever been. That's not my business. I'm happy for them, and tell then not to listen to anyone who tells them differently about it.
Quote:
I love that guy. If there's an 'Audiophile Hall of Fame', he belongs in it.
Still, don't hate me Joe G (or Mel), but I looove the sound you get from the best moving coils... it's addicting. And the tracking force on a Koetsu Black Gold Line is only around 1.5 grams or so... not too bad.
How could I possibly ever hate another audiophile? You're not a mass murderer, are you?
Quote:
I could see that being a factor, but how do you explain the guys who won't let go of their direct-drive Goldman Studiettos and Studios until you pry their cold, dead, fingers off of them?
Those are very good tables, but more expensive then I think they should be, and I'm not exactly cheap. As I said, I don't argue with taste.
Quote:
I think 'philes like to tweak stuff, but in the end, sound always matters most. And while there have been stellar direct drive 'tables, there haven't been too many of them. Hate to admit it, but the British belt-drive 'table makers got it really right, and seemed to come out with the lion's share of great 'tables.
There were never too many high end direct drive tables, because audiophiles never liked the idea of them. It's too bad. There's room for everything, which , in the end, you are right about, it's all subjective to the buyer.
Quote:
Let go of the stats and just listen, Mel. I mean, you know the arguments as well or better than I... direct-drive 'tables have the motor in more direct contact with the platter, resulting in more vibration, which makes it harder to get fine information off the record. Belt-drive isolates the motor from the platter better. But it has other weaknesses, of which you are no doubt aware. Both technologies can produce great-sounding 'tables.
But, that's not true! Direct drives turn at the same speed as the platter. It's part of the platter, in a way, as it's on the same shaft. A well balanced motor will ALWAYS vibrate less at a slower speed. Hell, a poorly balanced motor will also. I could easily prove that to you, if you came over here. It's simply too complex mathematically to post it, or get into it online.
Belt drives have their own problems, as ypu noted. Cogging from the thin belt, which is always in an unstable condition. The belt streches on the side of the pulley where it pulls the platter, because of the mass. the other side is in a condition of slackness. every so often, depending on the factors of the design, the belt slips on the pulley. this causes cogging.
It also causes the belt to vibrate at a harmonic of whatever the system requires, which depends upon the mass of the platter, its diameter, the speed of the pulley, the diameter of the belt, the length of the belt, and type of material of the belt, etc.
Still, with all that, not to speak of the vibration of motors running at 1725 or 1800 rpm, some nice stuff has come out.
Quote:
Agreed.
Like right now.
Quote:
I dunno Mel... the way I was always taught by Keith Yates (who used to run one of the very best audiophile shops on the West Coast years back, in Sacramento) was that the 'table mattered most of all, then the arm, then the cartridge. Without great isolation from the 'table, the fine information in the groove was going to be swamped, and nothing else after that in the chain would much matter. It beared out in practice quite well... my used Linn Sondek with even a Basik arm would consistently whomp the crap out of 'good, but a step down' 'tables with superior arms.
If the table is bad, and there have been some really bad ones out there, then I would agree.
What I do agree with is that isolation is VERY important. Modern turntable manufacturers seem to have forgotten about that. The isolation feet have mostly disappeared, to be replaced with the fad of cones, which do nothing at all. so now has appeared an industry of isolation platforms to overcome that indiscretion.
For my own rack, which I built this year out of heavy aluminum extrusions, I have built an isolation platform. My table sits within a space that is sealed on the top and sides. The rear has a door that swings down with special hinges. Around the frame of the door is a gasket, for dust prevention. The door has two 1 1/2" holes I cut out, the audio cables go out one, and the power cable goes out the other.
The cables are arranged so the they apply no tension to the table, and so don't affect the isolation platform. The holes are closed with rubber, to hold the cables, as well as keep out the dust.
The front of the space is opened with two 12 1/2" x 12 1/2" doors that I made out of wild grain Bubinga, and my own design lift-off hinges. The opening is also lined with the gasket. Between the doors is a silicone rubber 1/4" dia. seal, that prevents dust from entering between the doors.
The inside of the table "room" is lit from above by two 10" LED lights, which are low voltage and have the AC to 12 volt DC output out the back and at the bottom of the rack. That way, there is no 120 volt AC cord in the close proximity of the table.
The isolation platform I designed consists of a 3/4" x 18" x 24" piece of marble I cut, that weighs about 60 lbs. That is bonded to a piece of soft 1/16" steel sheet, which is bonded to another one. That is bonded, on the bottom, to a 3/4" piece of MDF, which has an aluminum, elastomere constrained damping material adhered to its bottom. That makes a spread spectrum vibration resistant platform. That sits on four shock absorbers that I designed, that are mass loaded to the total weight of the table and platform of about 125 lbs. The platform is tuned to about 15 Hz, which is considered to be the ideal frequency for phono applications.
You can jump up and down on the wooden floor while playing an Lp, and nothing will happen. You can even hit the rack (which weighs over 300 lbs, without any of the equipment, including the large Tv, with a mallet, while playing, and not disturb it.
I told you all of this because I don't want you thinking that I don't care about my phono reproduction. I do. I make the best of it.
Quote:
If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the best 'table I could afford, and then have a good, but lower-end arm and cartridge, figuring I could always upgrade later.
I don't agree with the order of that. By far, the most important thing is the preservation of your collection. That is priceless these days. The best tracking cartridge, and the best arm for it, should be first. you can always save up for a better table later.
Quote:
True audiophiles don't much care about those kind of specs, Mel. You gotta sit down and LISTEN.
That's true for some today, but not all.
Believe me, I listen. I was even accused, by some young guy who was with George, from Cary, of being, I almost hesitate to say it, a Music Lover!
Wow! Can you imagine the audacity of it? George just laughed.
Quote:
Not a bad 'table at all, but I'd recommend spending some significant face time with a Linn Sondek or Michell GyroDec, perhaps a Goldman if you can find one used that's been well kept-up.
I've listened to plenty, and have had quite a few here that were on loan. so far, the one that garnered the most votes, both from me, and from my friends, was the Aries 3 with the new 10.5i arm., So I will likely go with that, or whatever successor when I'm ready. At least they have finally realized the futility of those stupid TipToe-like feet, and have come out with isolation feet you can get.
Quote:
*wishes he had an AR, it's a magnificent piece of history*
Yup. I remember when it came out. Good for something so cheap. $68. Even then that was cheap. Though I think the dustcover was extra, as it so often is. I'm making a dustcover for my friends unit.
Quote:
You said it.
.
Indeed! (Maybe this word is being overused. But I like it.)
Comments
This is where the lack of understanding what Nyquest was saying comes in. We don't listen to the D/A waveform directly.
When that waveform is put through an anti-aliasing filter, which it is, the waveform looks EXACTLY as it did before the sampling took place.
Yes, things are done to make the waveform more closely approximate the original, sure. And in theory, it should be 'good enough'. To many people on mid-fi systems, it is. But my ears consistently tell me a different story.
I have no vested interest in finding CD and its sampling rate wanting, Mel... in fact, when CD first hit the scene, I thought it was extremely coo'. But then someone sat me down in front of a good 'table on a good system, and left me alone to A-B it against CD. That converted me. I wish CD really was 'all that', it would be a heckuva lot cheaper.
Sony invented SACD for one purpose. To continue to collect licensing fees, and royalties. The income stream for them, and Phillips, was coming to an end as their patents on the CD were rapidly running out. That was a several hundred million a year loss, and is one of the reasons why Sony's profits fell so much in the last few years.
They had to come up with a reason for this new format, and your charts were one of the ways they thought they could do it. Few bit.
I'm aware of the history. Doesn't mean its not a better sounding format.
There is a lot of hype involved in hi end audio. One of these is the 24/96 (or higher) myth. John Ergle, one of the most respected producers, engineers, and all around gurus in the music industry for many years, maintained, as have many others, that anything over 20/48 is a waste for playback, and I concur. In the demo's that I went to at Sony, I, and the others there, heard little, if any improvement in SACD over CD. How much of that could be attributed to the new process, and how much to better attention to the mastering, I don't know, but in listening to many SACD's, as well as DVD Audio, I'm convinced that neither does much.
Congrats. You've restated the old truism... audio is subjective.
Nope. Mine are spotless as well. But that is only the part that we have control over.
Then why the mention of 'dirt'?
Mechanical engineering is at a very high level these days. Once you get to a certain point, it's less of an improvement then it is the art of convincing your possible buying public that something intangible is going on. In looking closely at a large number of turntables over the years, I've come to the conclusion that $5,000 is the point where, including arm, you pretty much see a tailing off of any value. And that is pretty darn expensive. In cartridges, I feel at just over $1,000 is the point of tailoff.
I'd tend to agree. Anyone spending more than $10K on their entire analog front-end is overdoing it, even by audiophile standards.
I knew Joe Grado for many years. He invented the moving coil cartridge. But, he abandoned it many years ago. He said that it was invented in response to the poor hi frequency response of all the equipment out the in the late '50's, which he includes the Lp of its day. Once everything improved seriously, in the early '60's, he saw no point to them. But, the most expensive cartridges today are still moving coils.
Yes, many of the cartridges Grado makes today are based on something called 'moving iron'. The guy's a legend, deservedly so. He had a $20 cartridge back in the day that sounded as good or better than cartridges costing ten times as much.
That said, the best cartridge I ever heard was a $650 (at the time) Koetsu Black Gold moving coil.
I still have my old Technics SL 1100A, with a Joe Grado modified Technics arm, with his own wire, and a Grado Signature cartridge. I have always found that table to be better than most anything else out there.
Whoa... I guess I called it with my prior 'high end Technics table' comment. I remember that table as being well-made, certainly, but not up among the best-sounding. There's a lot of 'tables I'd take over it. But as I said, audio is subjective, and at least it doesn't have Technics' 'tan-genital' tracking.
Audiophiles are a strange lot.
This is news?
Well, I don't find that to be true.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
Honestly, I've never liked belt drives. That is one of the WORST ways to drive a turntable. My old Technics is (direct drive, NOT the disco model, but the manual model), I'll warrent, better than most of what is out there now.
Pity. Is belt-drive what's kept you away from the really good-sounding 'tables, like the Linn Sondek and Michell Gyrodec? That said, the Goldman Studietto and Studio were direct drive, and they were awesome.
In my experience, both belt- and direct-drive can produce awesome 'tables.
The Linns have always had their defenders, and their detractors. It's considered to be the first "modern", by the high end definition, turntable.
Hmm... thought the Acoustics Research, or 'AR', was. Well, ok, you're talking high-end.. in that case, yes, Linn.
It adds more of its own sound to the mix than more recent tables do though. It's always been sensitive to ambient conditions. But, I know people who swear by it, in most of its upgraded forms.
Yeah. You should check out the Fremer review, if you haven't already. I had one for a few years, it definitely is 'all that'.
I listen to music on my computer through Grado SR225 headphones. They're pretty good, but aren't overdoing it. When I've done music work on my machines, I have to listen through several different sources.
Grado 'phones are quite excellent.
Ok, 'nuff said, goin' to bed.
.
Figure 1 is of the analog source that's being sampled (a sine wave in this case- a musical waveform would be far more complex).
Figure 2 shows the timeslices where the analog waveform is being digitally sampled.
Figure 3 shows the waveform that's reproduced from the digital information. Note how it approximates, but is obviously different from, the original analog waveform? The difference between the two waveforms is what could be described as inaccuracy or distortion, and can explain why some people find digital audio tiring to listen to for long periods of time. This is what happens when the digital sampling rate is too low.
But increase the number of samples, and you can approximate the analog waveform much more closely and accurately.
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
The reason why those other formats exist is for music production where you might have to slow down or pitch shift a performance. 44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
Her $100 price target for AAPL (where the stock will go in 6 or 12 months) is not related to a slight change in gross margin.
If someone thinks that a valuation does not have anything to do with gross margins (and thus a change in it), they don't know a whole heckuva lot about valuation!
That said, it was merely meant to be a joke.....
:-(
There's another one that I wrote about in some of the music magazines.
Imagine having a way that someone's experience can be transfered, and stored.
We might have people who go to events as human recorders, with their own feelings, concepts, and different abilities in hearing.
We would then rent, or buy, recordings made from their live experience, and through some sort of cap, experience exactly what they did, with, of course, our own personalities interpreting it just as we do now to a recording...
Believe me, I've been ready for this ever since Brainstorm and Strange Days.
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
10 KHz would still be in the range of human hearing.
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
That's the theory, anyway.
44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
For most people on most systems, 44.1 KHz is fine, just as 128 kpbs AAC is 'fine' for many people (I myself have an iPod for working out and casual rock listening). But A-B 44.1 KHz digital against good analog on a true audiophile system, and I think you'll be in for a rude awakening. I certainly was... and I used to believe that CD really was 'perfect sound forever', as it was pitched when introduced.
.
10 KHz would still be in the range of human hearing.
Of course it's still in the range of human hearing: otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it.
The point is that it's such a fast frequency that small errors in representing it are irrelevant.
If someone thinks that a valuation does not have anything to do with gross margins (and thus a change in it), they don't know a whole heckuva lot about valuation! That said, it was merely meant to be a joke..... :-(
The gross margin for the current quarter did not lead to the $100 price target, Ebeling raised her price target from $93 to $100 but it was four months ago (due to optimism about the iPhone).
And in your example the change in gross margin was only 0.3% anyway. Okay, I didn't get the joke.
The point is that it's such a fast frequency that small errors in representing it are irrelevant.
That's not what audiophiles have been hearing for the last 25 years. In fact, the consensus is that digital has more problems the higher in frequency you go(!).
However, it is most noticeable in the upper midrange and low treble, because more music is there than in the high treble, and the human ear is especially sensitive to such frequencies.
Look, I've had stats and theory and "it should be perfect" quoted at me for decades on this one. I know the arguments, and I know what I'm hearing. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
.
Yes, things are done to make the waveform more closely approximate the original, sure. And in theory, it should be 'good enough'. To many people on mid-fi systems, it is. But my ears consistently tell me a different story.
I'll bet, that when it comes down to it, you can't hear the difference.
I have no vested interest in finding CD and its sampling rate wanting, Mel... in fact, when CD first hit the scene, I thought it was extremely coo'. But then someone sat me down in front of a good 'table on a good system, and left me alone to A-B it against CD. That converted me. I wish CD really was 'all that', it would be a heckuva lot cheaper.
The first CD players had a small problem that was cured with dithering after a year or so after the first players came out.
The first recordings also had problems. Many recording engineers were recording as though the final mixdown would be done for Lp, and so some, esp from DG, were very "hard" sounding, eg. too much treble.
Another problem they found was that too many times, the digital mixes were being converted to analog several times on its way to the stamping presses. This caused all sorts of problems. The analog mixdowns and level compensations being made degraded the sound appreciably.
Even later, when that wasn't being done anymore, it was found that often, the production engineers at the pressing plants were still doing it! They would take the DLT and D/A it so that they could listen to it, and then A/D'd it back!
That's not done any longer.
The last big issue had to do with mixdowns. After it was realized that going analog to mixdown was causing problems, after a year, or so, they went to digital consoles. So far, so good. But, what they didn't realize, was that those consoles, being 16 bits, were clipping off bits on either the top end, or the bottom end, depending on how a track was level adjusted. A 16 bit recording, therefore, could have tracks that contained anywhere from 12 to 16 bits—in the same mix! Not good.
That was why Sony came up with the 24/96 console. Except for going to 96 bits (I'll explain later, if you want me too), this solved that problem. Mixing could be done in the 24 bit space, and brought to the 16 bit space later without causing problems. That made a big improvement.
Unfortunately, it also let some to think that "more is better".
while that's true to a certain extent, it doesn't extend to 24/96, which is way out of the range that any audio system can deliver, even if we could hear the difference.
[quote]
I'm aware of the history. Doesn't mean its not a better sounding format.{/quote]
Being aware of something doesn't mean that one appreciates, or understands the lessons to be gained from it.
Congrats. You've restated the old truism... audio is subjective.
Yes, so is the Placebo effect. One out of three audiophiles will insist they hear something, when they didn't.
Then why the mention of 'dirt'?
Because it's in the mother, the stampers, and everywhere else. My Lp's may be spotless, but if I put them under my binocular scope, I can see small particles that will never wash off under any normal conditions even after using a cleaning machine. I proved that to some skeptics at a meeting, where we used a VPI machine to clean the Lp's first.
I'd tend to agree. Anyone spending more than $10K on their entire analog front-end is overdoing it, even by audiophile standards.
I certainly think so, but I know others that would argue with both of us about it, and insist on using tubes for the phono front end.
Yes, many of the cartridges Grado makes today are based on something called 'moving iron'. The guy's a legend, deservedly so. He had a $20 cartridge back in the day that sounded as good or better than cartridges costing ten times as much.
That said, the best cartridge I ever heard was a $650 (at the time) Koetsu Black Gold moving coil.
All of their cartridges today are moving iron, which he developed over a long time, after he abandoned the moving coil.
I don't like moving coils (and he didn't either) for two reasons. One, of course, is the low output, which requires a stage with lots of voltage amplification, resulting in too much noise, and other problems with the loading, which is critical.
The other problem is the high tracking force. Once you get much above 1.25 grams, you start to wear out the vinyl too quickly. Even today, many of the "best", and highest priced moving coils track at around 2.5 grams. Way too high.
Lastly, the ultrasonic resonanse, which gives them their extended high frequency response, while lower, and better controlled than in the old days, still can cause problems.
Whoa... I guess I called it with my prior 'high end Technics table' comment. I remember that table as being well-made, certainly, but not up among the best-sounding. There's a lot of 'tables I'd take over it. But as I said, audio is subjective, and at least it doesn't have Technics' 'tan-genital' tracking.
Well, you didn't call much of anything. If I were like some people, I would just lie about it to make you happy, but I don't do that.
I don't mind disagreeing with you about this. I belong to three audio groups here in New York, and most people who have come here, and kistened to the analog front end have been very happy with it. It's nust the audiophile "can't tweek it" prejudice that prevented direct drives from taking over that part of the industry.
It's funny, because in every other indusrty where stability, accuracy of speed, low rumble and wow and flutter is concerned, direct drive has eliminated belt drives from the feild. Only audiophiles, with their insistence on old technology, have belt drives continued to be the norm.
This is news?
To many audiophiles, yes.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
Pity. Is belt-drive what's kept you away from the really good-sounding 'tables, like the Linn Sondek and Michell Gyrodec? That said, the Goldman Studietto and Studio were direct drive, and they were awesome.
I think the arm is far more a factor than the turntable is. Many of those popular turntables ran 1% fast. I can only guess, and their designers wouldn't tell me, that it was intentional. It seems that some audiophiles like the slightly faster models. They describe the sound from those as having "pace", and "rhythm". If you slow the tables down externally, to the proper speed, those qualities disappear. So, again. perfection seems to have little meaning to some.
In my experience, both belt- and direct-drive can produce awesome 'tables.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all belt tables are bad. I'm not. I'm saying that direct drive can produce far more of what tables have always tried to have, at a lower cost. You might notice that table manufacturers rarely, if ever, give out specs for their tables these days. It's because they have reached the mechanical limits for those devices, and showing specs, would only serve to prove that lesser tables are equal to the very high end models.
When I buy a new model, I'll have to end up with a belt as well. There's little choice these days about that, and I would want tp buy one from a manufacturer that will be around for a while, and one I also know. I'll likely buy a VPI.
Hmm... thought the Acoustics Research, or 'AR', was. Well, ok, you're talking high-end.. in that case, yes, Linn.
A friend of mine still has the Ar, though he hasn't used for many years. As a matter of fact, I still have my Dual 1009, which I bought in '65, when I was 15. I got an ADC Mark 4 10/E. An excellent cartridge.
Yeah. You should check out the Fremer review, if you haven't already. I had one for a few years, it definitely is 'all that'.
Yeah, I read it.
Grado 'phones are quite excellent.
Great, but uncomfortable.
Ok, 'nuff said, goin' to bed.
Nitey nite.
But here's what you're forgetting here: per your example, that sine wave is 10 freaking kilohertz!
You can sample it as much as you want, it's happening so fast that "errors" in it's sampling are imperceptible to humans.
The reason why those other formats exist is for music production where you might have to slow down or pitch shift a performance. 44.1 kHz is perfect as a delivery format.
I didn't get into that, but yes, that sampling rate leads to at 20 KHz? 2 samples per wave! Or, 44 KHz.
10 KHz would still be in the range of human hearing.
That's the theory, anyway.
For most people on most systems, 44.1 KHz is fine, just as 128 kpbs AAC is 'fine' for many people (I myself have an iPod for working out and casual rock listening). But A-B 44.1 KHz digital against good analog on a true audiophile system, and I think you'll be in for a rude awakening. I certainly was... and I used to believe that CD really was 'perfect sound forever', as it was pitched when introduced.
.
I always have found it to be interesting that some audiphiles have tuened audio into the new religion.
You can say anything you want, without having to prove any of it, even if it's impossible.
That's not what audiophiles have been hearing for the last 25 years. In fact, the consensus is that digital has more problems the higher in frequency you go(!).
Be accurate. This is what SOME audiophiles think. Not the majority.
However, it is most noticeable in the upper midrange and low treble, because more music is there than in the high treble, and the human ear is especially sensitive to such frequencies.
Look, I've had stats and theory and "it should be perfect" quoted at me for decades on this one. I know the arguments, and I know what I'm hearing. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
.
25 years ago, when the format first came out, it was still a learning process. There were errors that were made, as I documented, but those have been corrected.
Unfortunately, there has been no corresponding improvement in the analog portion.
Nothing is going to be perfect. We can't even discuss that.
I always have found it to be interesting that some audiphiles have tuened audio into the new religion.
You can say anything you want, without having to prove any of it, even if it's impossible.
You mean like what they used to say about global warming?
Audio isn't a religion for me Mel, or even most audiophiles I know. It's more an adjunct to music, something many people feel passionate about. And I'm surprised, frankly, that you call yourself an audiophile of sorts, apparently know some folks in the industry, and yet seem to feel a tiny bit hostile towards them, or at least some of them. At least that's what I'm hearing between the lines here. Perhaps you find their stubbornness irritating. I can understand that.
However, while I can understand you disagreeing with and perhaps being irritated by them, cracks about religion don't really have much place here. I get where you're coming from Mel, but there's really no reason to get ugly about it.
I also think that there are some things about audio that are less well-understood than we'd like to believe, and that audiophiles aren't 'just imagining things', even though some technical types insist otherwise. Ah well, buy what makes you happy, right?
.
Be accurate. This is what SOME audiophiles think. Not the majority.
The majority of audiophiles I've met say much the same thing on the matter. And I've never, ever had someone come up to me and say, "Wow, CD's high-end sure whomps the crud out of my awesome $10K analog front end!"
This is over the past 25 years, mind you. So no, I don't feel a particular need to qualify myself here.
.
I'll bet, that when it comes down to it, you can't hear the difference.
I dunno Mel... I have pretty awesome ears.
But spill... what exactly would you compare to (master recordings?), and under what conditions? That does make a huge difference.
[history of digital recording blunders]
Impressive stuff, Mel. Some of that I knew, but not all, and you are fascinating to talk to on this subject. But let me ask you... with all of this stuff allegedly completely 'fixed' at this point, why then do you think so many audiophiles still prefer a top-notch analog front-end to digital?
Being aware of something doesn't mean that one appreciates, or understands the lessons to be [gained from it.
I could not agree more.
Yes, so is the Placebo effect. One out of three audiophiles will insist they hear something, when they didn't.
Ugh. I've heard this old saw for 25 years now. It's overstated.
What I find more often than any placebo effect are poor A-B comparison set-ups where audiophiles are supposed to listen to unfamiliar music on unfamiliar systems in an unfamiliar environment for a relatively brief period of time. Under those circumstances, good luck getting valid data back.
Because it's in the mother, the stampers, and everywhere else. My Lp's may be spotless, but if I put them under my binocular scope, I can see small particles that will never wash off under any normal conditions even after using a cleaning machine. I proved that to some skeptics at a meeting, where we used a VPI machine to clean the Lp's first.
Not to mention label shreds from recycled vinyl in poorer-quality records. Thanks for clarifying.
I certainly think so, but I know others that would argue with both of us about it, and insist on using tubes for the phono front end.
Ugh. Tube amps seem to pair MUCH better with digital, not phono. But I have never lived with a good tube amp for an extended period of time, so I'll withhold judgement.
All of their cartridges today are moving iron, which he developed over a long time, after he abandoned the moving coil.
I don't like moving coils (and he didn't either) for two reasons. One, of course, is the low output, which requires a stage with lots of voltage amplification, resulting in too much noise, and other problems with the loading, which is critical.
The other problem is the high tracking force. Once you get much above 1.25 grams, you start to wear out the vinyl too quickly. Even today, many of the "best", and highest priced moving coils track at around 2.5 grams. Way too high.
Lastly, the ultrasonic resonanse, which gives them their extended high frequency response, while lower, and better controlled than in the old days, still can cause problems.
I love that guy. If there's an 'Audiophile Hall of Fame', he belongs in it.
Still, don't hate me Joe G (or Mel), but I looove the sound you get from the best moving coils... it's addicting. And the tracking force on a Koetsu Black Gold Line is only around 1.5 grams or so... not too bad.
Well, you didn't call much of anything. If I were like some people, I would just lie about it to make you happy, but I don't do that.
I don't mind disagreeing with you about this. I belong to three audio groups here in New York, and most people who have come here, and kistened to the analog front end have been very happy with it. It's nust the audiophile "can't tweek it" prejudice that prevented direct drives from taking over that part of the industry.
I could see that being a factor, but how do you explain the guys who won't let go of their direct-drive Goldman Studiettos and Studios until you pry their cold, dead, fingers off of them?
I think 'philes like to tweak stuff, but in the end, sound always matters most. And while there have been stellar direct drive 'tables, there haven't been too many of them. Hate to admit it, but the British belt-drive 'table makers got it really right, and seemed to come out with the lion's share of great 'tables.
It's funny, because in every other indusrty where stability, accuracy of speed, low rumble and wow and flutter is concerned, direct drive has eliminated belt drives from the feild. Only audiophiles, with their insistence on old technology, have belt drives continued to be the norm.
Let go of the stats and just listen, Mel. I mean, you know the arguments as well or better than I... direct-drive 'tables have the motor in more direct contact with the platter, resulting in more vibration, which makes it harder to get fine information off the record. Belt-drive isolates the motor from the platter better. But it has other weaknesses, of which you are no doubt aware. Both technologies can produce great-sounding 'tables.
It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
Agreed.
I think the arm is far more a factor than the turntable is.
I dunno Mel... the way I was always taught by Keith Yates (who used to run one of the very best audiophile shops on the West Coast years back, in Sacramento) was that the 'table mattered most of all, then the arm, then the cartridge. Without great isolation from the 'table, the fine information in the groove was going to be swamped, and nothing else after that in the chain would much matter. It beared out in practice quite well... my used Linn Sondek with even a Basik arm would consistently whomp the crap out of 'good, but a step down' 'tables with superior arms.
If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the best 'table I could afford, and then have a good, but lower-end arm and cartridge, figuring I could always upgrade later.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all belt tables are bad. I'm not. I'm saying that direct drive can produce far more of what tables have always tried to have, at a lower cost. You might notice that table manufacturers rarely, if ever, give out specs for their tables these days. It's because they have reached the mechanical limits for those devices, and showing specs, would only serve to prove that lesser tables are equal to the very high end models.
True audiophiles don't much care about those kind of specs, Mel. You gotta sit down and LISTEN.
When I buy a new model, I'll have to end up with a belt as well. There's little choice these days about that, and I would want tp buy one from a manufacturer that will be around for a while, and one I also know. I'll likely buy a VPI.
Not a bad 'table at all, but I'd recommend spending some significant face time with a Linn Sondek or Michell GyroDec, perhaps a Goldman if you can find one used that's been well kept-up.
A friend of mine still has the Ar, though he hasn't used for many years. As a matter of fact, I still have my Dual 1009, which I bought in '65, when I was 15. I got an ADC Mark 4 10/E. An excellent cartridge.
*wishes he had an AR, it's a magnificent piece of history*
Nitey nite.
You said it.
.
You mean like what they used to say about global warming?
Audio isn't a religion for me Mel, or even most audiophiles I know. It's more an adjunct to music, something many people feel passionate about. And I'm surprised, frankly, that you call yourself an audiophile of sorts, apparently know some folks in the industry, and yet seem to feel a tiny bit hostile towards them, or at least some of them. At least that's what I'm hearing between the lines here. Perhaps you find their stubbornness irritating. I can understand that.
I've been around audio since the mid '60's, when I was a teenager and went to the stereo shows in Manhattan. I've been an audiophile for that long. As a teenager back then, the big names in the business would like to talk to me when I came around, because they saw someone who would grow into it. so I got to know a number of them. I was lucky.
I saw a lot of integrity in the business back then, and over the years, I've seen less and less. So, sure, I have some hostility towards a disturbing trend that I saw start. It's a shame really, because it has led nowhere.
The problem is that there is no longer any way for someone to call for standards, repeatability, or any other scientific progress in the hi end of the field, because we are shouted down by the " I hear it, I really do" crowd, who want to *believe*.
I see it in the $20,000 battery powered cables, in the $350,000 5 watt single ended tube amps, in the $90,000 turntables, $15,000 moving coil cartridges and $20,000 tube phono stages. I see it with the ideas of hanging your speaker cables from the ceiling with fishing twine, or lifting them off the floor with $1,000 ceramic cups.
Should I go on?
I remember the beginning to all of this nonsense.
A little story.
A fair time ago in the late '60's, a guy named J. Gordon Holt was upset that his new transistor amp sounded "hard", and gave him a headache. He felt that no one was listening to him, so he quit his job at Esquire, and started a magazine called Stereophile. In that, he expounded that he, and others, because there WAS a problem, were "hearing something that they aren't measuring".
He was right! A couple of years later by 1970, or so, they found a distortion they called TIM transient intermodulation distortion. Tube amps didn't seem to have it because tube had poor high frequency response, and were "slow". They never though of checking for it before.
In a little bit over a year later, manufacturers has fixed that problem, and we haven't been bothered by it ever since.
Story over, right?
No!
He confided in me during the late '70's that he wasn't sure where to take his mag at that point, but he came up with an idea to extend his first concept.
It was simple! He changed his proposition to: "We can hear things that they can't measure."
Now this was really something!
Unfortunately, to his chagrin, because he is really a nice guy, and didn't really expect this, people started to come out of the woodwork. Before you knew it, companies, and individuals, began making all sorts of claims that couldn't be proven. But, that was all right you see, because no one had to prove anything anymore, because Gordon said they didn't, and he was the guru.
Prices went up, performance went down, and it hasn't stopped yet. Of course, the industry is dying, but that just pushes prices even higher, and claims get more mystical every day.
When we made a study in the early '90's with a live comparison, and made changes to components for each stage of the tests,and at the end, where we explained what we had done, and told the subjects that we made no change during one of the sequences, several people involved accused us of lying. They were so sure they heard a difference, they would rather accuse us of that, then accept that there was nothing done. They heard it, and so it must be.
It's always interesting to note that the vast majority of audiophiles will not make a pronouncement about the sound of something without first knowing the particulars of what they are listening to. They are afraid to say the wrong thing, so they have to know what they are listening to first.
This is why I'm a bit testy about all of this.
However, while I can understand you disagreeing with and perhaps being irritated by them, cracks about religion don't really have much place here. I get where you're coming from Mel, but there's really no reason to get ugly about it.
Please, it's not a crack. Even the audio mags themselves, such as Stereophile TAS, and others, have said that. It's not a hidden secret, and I'm not the first one proposing it. Many in my groups agree.
I also think that there are some things about audio that are less well-understood than we'd like to believe, and that audiophiles aren't 'just imagining things', even though some technical types insist otherwise. Ah well, buy what makes you happy, right?
.
We all hear differently. But, it's been shown that just as there are optical illusions, there are audio ones as well.
We all know of the optical illusion where there is a white sheet with black squares lined up on it in a pattern, of, say, four squares across by five down, with white space between the squares.
What happens when we stare at that?
We see grey lines appear from the corners of the squares, connecting them. That comes and goes. It happens because our brain tries to connect the squares, our conscious mind knows they don't exist, and tells us not to see them, so they go away. But, the instant we lose concentration, they come back.
Come back, go away, come back go away. Over and over. No matter how long we look, they come back and then go away.
It's believed that our brain sees those squares as leaves, and is trying to connect them into a recognizable shape, such as a branch, or possibly a bush.
It's how our minds work. we take what we don't know, and try to impose upon it what we do know, to try to make sense of it.
The same thing happens with our hearing. Our brain makes us think we are hearing something that we aren't. It comes and goes, but we can't place it.
Different people are affected differently by these optical and audio illusions.
Ok, this is enough for this post.
The majority of audiophiles I've met say much the same thing on the matter. And I've never, ever had someone come up to me and say, "Wow, CD's high-end sure whomps the crud out of my awesome $10K analog front end!"
This is over the past 25 years, mind you. So no, I don't feel a particular need to qualify myself here.
.
We apparently know different sets of audiophiles.
We apparently know different sets of audiophiles.
Indeed.
.
I dunno Mel... I have pretty awesome ears.
Yes, I'm picturing Elmer Fudd, or possibly Dumbo. Just kidding.
But spill... what exactly would you compare to (master recordings?), and under what conditions? That does make a huge difference.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please reword that?
Impressive stuff, Mel. Some of that I knew, but not all, and you are fascinating to talk to on this subject. But let me ask you... with all of this stuff allegedly completely 'fixed' at this point, why then do you think so many audiophiles still prefer a top-notch analog front-end to digital?
I've been around the field a long time. It used to be a fairly small field, so one could get to know almost everyone.
I don't account for taste. That's everyones right.
I could not agree more.
Oh, this could get ugly!
Ugh. I've heard this old saw for 25 years now. It's overstated.
What I find more often than any placebo effect are poor A-B comparison set-ups where audiophiles are supposed to listen to unfamiliar music on unfamiliar systems in an unfamiliar environment for a relatively brief period of time. Under those circumstances, good luck getting valid data back.
Sure, there have been poor A/B tests, but there have been some good ones as well. But, there is no evidence that long term listening is any better. Any differences either get amplified, or minimized over the long term. We also have almost no long term audio memory. After five minutes it's gone. Not the emotional memory, but the actual memory of the sound. That's why we need to write down what we are hearing as we hear it.
Not to mention label shreds from recycled vinyl in poorer-quality records. Thanks for clarifying.
Sure.
Ugh. Tube amps seem to pair MUCH better with digital, not phono. But I have never lived with a good tube amp for an extended period of time, so I'll withhold judgement.
You know, matter of taste. I NEVER argue with someone if they tell me that they have put together the system of their dreams, no matter what it may consist of, and listening to music is far better for them now then it has ever been. That's not my business. I'm happy for them, and tell then not to listen to anyone who tells them differently about it.
I love that guy. If there's an 'Audiophile Hall of Fame', he belongs in it.
Still, don't hate me Joe G (or Mel), but I looove the sound you get from the best moving coils... it's addicting. And the tracking force on a Koetsu Black Gold Line is only around 1.5 grams or so... not too bad.
How could I possibly ever hate another audiophile? You're not a mass murderer, are you?
I could see that being a factor, but how do you explain the guys who won't let go of their direct-drive Goldman Studiettos and Studios until you pry their cold, dead, fingers off of them?
Those are very good tables, but more expensive then I think they should be, and I'm not exactly cheap. As I said, I don't argue with taste.
I think 'philes like to tweak stuff, but in the end, sound always matters most. And while there have been stellar direct drive 'tables, there haven't been too many of them. Hate to admit it, but the British belt-drive 'table makers got it really right, and seemed to come out with the lion's share of great 'tables.
There were never too many high end direct drive tables, because audiophiles never liked the idea of them. It's too bad. There's room for everything, which , in the end, you are right about, it's all subjective to the buyer.
Let go of the stats and just listen, Mel. I mean, you know the arguments as well or better than I... direct-drive 'tables have the motor in more direct contact with the platter, resulting in more vibration, which makes it harder to get fine information off the record. Belt-drive isolates the motor from the platter better. But it has other weaknesses, of which you are no doubt aware. Both technologies can produce great-sounding 'tables.
But, that's not true! Direct drives turn at the same speed as the platter. It's part of the platter, in a way, as it's on the same shaft. A well balanced motor will ALWAYS vibrate less at a slower speed. Hell, a poorly balanced motor will also. I could easily prove that to you, if you came over here. It's simply too complex mathematically to post it, or get into it online.
Belt drives have their own problems, as ypu noted. Cogging from the thin belt, which is always in an unstable condition. The belt streches on the side of the pulley where it pulls the platter, because of the mass. the other side is in a condition of slackness. every so often, depending on the factors of the design, the belt slips on the pulley. this causes cogging.
It also causes the belt to vibrate at a harmonic of whatever the system requires, which depends upon the mass of the platter, its diameter, the speed of the pulley, the diameter of the belt, the length of the belt, and type of material of the belt, etc.
Still, with all that, not to speak of the vibration of motors running at 1725 or 1800 rpm, some nice stuff has come out.
Agreed.
Like right now.
I dunno Mel... the way I was always taught by Keith Yates (who used to run one of the very best audiophile shops on the West Coast years back, in Sacramento) was that the 'table mattered most of all, then the arm, then the cartridge. Without great isolation from the 'table, the fine information in the groove was going to be swamped, and nothing else after that in the chain would much matter. It beared out in practice quite well... my used Linn Sondek with even a Basik arm would consistently whomp the crap out of 'good, but a step down' 'tables with superior arms.
If the table is bad, and there have been some really bad ones out there, then I would agree.
What I do agree with is that isolation is VERY important. Modern turntable manufacturers seem to have forgotten about that. The isolation feet have mostly disappeared, to be replaced with the fad of cones, which do nothing at all. so now has appeared an industry of isolation platforms to overcome that indiscretion.
For my own rack, which I built this year out of heavy aluminum extrusions, I have built an isolation platform. My table sits within a space that is sealed on the top and sides. The rear has a door that swings down with special hinges. Around the frame of the door is a gasket, for dust prevention. The door has two 1 1/2" holes I cut out, the audio cables go out one, and the power cable goes out the other.
The cables are arranged so the they apply no tension to the table, and so don't affect the isolation platform. The holes are closed with rubber, to hold the cables, as well as keep out the dust.
The front of the space is opened with two 12 1/2" x 12 1/2" doors that I made out of wild grain Bubinga, and my own design lift-off hinges. The opening is also lined with the gasket. Between the doors is a silicone rubber 1/4" dia. seal, that prevents dust from entering between the doors.
The inside of the table "room" is lit from above by two 10" LED lights, which are low voltage and have the AC to 12 volt DC output out the back and at the bottom of the rack. That way, there is no 120 volt AC cord in the close proximity of the table.
The isolation platform I designed consists of a 3/4" x 18" x 24" piece of marble I cut, that weighs about 60 lbs. That is bonded to a piece of soft 1/16" steel sheet, which is bonded to another one. That is bonded, on the bottom, to a 3/4" piece of MDF, which has an aluminum, elastomere constrained damping material adhered to its bottom. That makes a spread spectrum vibration resistant platform. That sits on four shock absorbers that I designed, that are mass loaded to the total weight of the table and platform of about 125 lbs. The platform is tuned to about 15 Hz, which is considered to be the ideal frequency for phono applications.
You can jump up and down on the wooden floor while playing an Lp, and nothing will happen. You can even hit the rack (which weighs over 300 lbs, without any of the equipment, including the large Tv, with a mallet, while playing, and not disturb it.
I told you all of this because I don't want you thinking that I don't care about my phono reproduction. I do. I make the best of it.
If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the best 'table I could afford, and then have a good, but lower-end arm and cartridge, figuring I could always upgrade later.
I don't agree with the order of that. By far, the most important thing is the preservation of your collection. That is priceless these days. The best tracking cartridge, and the best arm for it, should be first. you can always save up for a better table later.
True audiophiles don't much care about those kind of specs, Mel. You gotta sit down and LISTEN.
That's true for some today, but not all.
Believe me, I listen. I was even accused, by some young guy who was with George, from Cary, of being, I almost hesitate to say it, a Music Lover!
Wow! Can you imagine the audacity of it? George just laughed.
Not a bad 'table at all, but I'd recommend spending some significant face time with a Linn Sondek or Michell GyroDec, perhaps a Goldman if you can find one used that's been well kept-up.
I've listened to plenty, and have had quite a few here that were on loan. so far, the one that garnered the most votes, both from me, and from my friends, was the Aries 3 with the new 10.5i arm., So I will likely go with that, or whatever successor when I'm ready. At least they have finally realized the futility of those stupid TipToe-like feet, and have come out with isolation feet you can get.
*wishes he had an AR, it's a magnificent piece of history*
Yup. I remember when it came out. Good for something so cheap. $68. Even then that was cheap. Though I think the dustcover was extra, as it so often is. I'm making a dustcover for my friends unit.
You said it.
.
Indeed! (Maybe this word is being overused. But I like it.)