 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
37.130.224.202
Michael Lavorgna gets its. Hallelujah!
January 2015 issue of Stereophile:
"Everything these days has a computer inside it, but you wouldn't call a car a computer. Same for music streamers. -what we at AudioStream .com also call network players. While a network player has computer inside, I don't consider it a computer because it is designed to DO JUST ONE THING: PLAY MUSIC."
It took long enough, but finally a mainstream audio publication has stated the obvious.
And in the article, the streamers he profiles, the Simaaudio MiND, the Auralic Aries, outperform his "optimized" Mac Book Pro by a fairly wide margin.
Follow Ups:
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
It's pretty clear by now, reading about user experience on various forums, that "optimized" Mac Book Pro, or anything Apple for that matter, is not it.
I understand the simplicity, convenience, nice UI etc. - but all of that has nothing to do with with the goal of having a REFERENCE, to which sound quality of other products can be compared.
By George, I think she's got it! After all these years you finally realize that you can't just judge something based on what you have read on the internet...you have to perform some kind of objective comparison! Congrats!
Stick to your "broken DACs" mantra, that's at least not as embarrassing.
is some sort of universal truth? or is it simply personal taste?Mine is simply what I've heard or experienced. I've experienced some killer systems. Many that I could never afford. I based my system on those systems, getting as close to the "ring" as I could afford.
My buddy had what he called a revealing system. It was his reference system. I'm sure it pushed 40K. Unfortunately, it made my ears bleed. I could never live with that reference system. Eventually, he grew out of it and now has a great system that is closer to mine....only better :)
Edits: 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14
Largely,
We are simply not doing enough of this. Whereas, - lots of folks are comparing one computer transport to another, with various degrees of "optimization" (sic): instead of looking at those old disc spinners. Many of which surprise folks when their computer dies, or hard drive goes, - they dust off their medium grade, $2000 CD player to find that it sounds better.
Carcass, BTW, IS experiencing better sound with his computer: something that I have not heard others having this same experience: and it also goes counter to mine.
The same elements that have made a great transport/DAC combo in the year 2000, are still important in 2014.
And it's no surprise to find some of these streamer builders using similar elements that make up "excellent" sounding disc transports & DACs: besting some computer hardware designs, - which are the antithesis of "good sound" designs.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
If Jaundiced Ear, who responded to you below, agrees with someone on any single audio-related point - that means something is seriously wrong with that someone's reference, and also with his setup, or his hearing, or his brain - or all of the above.
In a generally unreliable world of opinions about audio, the criteria above is as reliable as it gets.
So far as I can tell, carcass93 will agree with you on macro measurements. That is, if the system has measurably boosted bass or boosted treble, he too will agree that it is either boomy or shrill.
However, when it comes to micro measurements, so far as I know, there is nothing out there that can reveal whatever it is that carcass93 hears.
Now, for all I know carcass93 may be right. There's just no way to demonstrate what it is carcass 93 (among others) claims to hear.
JE
"However, when it comes to micro measurements, so far as I know, there is nothing out there that can reveal whatever it is that carcass93 hears."
I recall reading in one of the cics threads as to how noise related to computer processing was measured on the output of a DAC. The spectrum of the noise was related to the buffer processing rate in the software, e.g. would change as buffer sizes were adjusted.
Not sure if this is what carcass93 was hearing, but it's a good explanation of some of the differences that I and many others have heard. It also explains why real time playback of FLAC files often sounds different from converting the FLAC files to WAV and then playing the WAV files. (Among other reasons, this avoids an extra buffering stage and the necessary processing, probably at a different cycle rate because of variable bit rate encoding used by FLAC).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The point I'm trying to make, perhaps clumsily, is that while there are measurements that everyone can agree on: frequency response, distortion, etc, there are still no measurements for the things people cannot agree on. For example, I'm unaware of any measurement that would let me tell which of two amplifiers would have a "wider and deeper soundstage," or which preamp has superior PRAT.
Audiophiles have been remarking on these details for years, yet the engineering necessary to track these details has not kept up. We're still stuck with the same tests that have been used for generations. As a result, audiophiles are forced to either grin and bear it with whatever they've brought home, or have to follow the path of laboriously auditioning components with no real clear direction of where to go.
Well. sir than that is pretty scarey because I can tell you for a fact many DAC, and other component designers use Mac computers as sources when designing products.
NOT to mention several DAC manufacturers on this board, who have somehow managed to spellbind their minions, tout MAC as the ultimate source.
And...we get hundreds of "just get a Mac Mini" when we see those inevitable "I'm a computer audio newbie" threads pop up.
May be those manufacturers will eventually come up with a design of DAC immune to differences in transports - considering that they use sources that are far from optimal for their product development.
As for the "hundreds of "just get a Mac Mini" when we see those inevitable "I'm a computer audio newbie" threads" - if there's such thing as "blind leading the blind", there has to be "deaf leading the deaf", "lazy leading the lazy", "inexperienced leading the inexperienced", and so on - right?
Who determines what a real REFERENCE system should be?
Do we choose one of our own tweak of the week Asylum members whose 'REFERENCE' is a never ending moving target?
Do we elect one respected reviewer to come up with a stable REFERENCE system?
LOL - - Good luck !!
> Who determines what a real REFERENCE system should be?
I think the right word is pREFERENCE.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
I don't thing there needs to be one digital "reference".
And btw, it is not that far fetched, whether you agree with the premise or not.
At TAS, they worship at the alter of Magico and Wilson for loudspeakers, and Spectral, Constellation, and Soulution for amps.
At Stereophike, Fremer is the Analog God, with his minions bowing before the alter of his Continuum turntable.
So if there seems to be some consensus for other gear, it is not unreasonable. That is if you agree with the premise, which I probably do not.
What we CAN do Abe, is simply determine what is NOT a reference.
What we CAN do Abe, is simply determine what is NOT a reference.
True. And nothing is a REFERENCE and nothing ever will be. Back to square one. ;-)
The process of elimination is actually a step forward.
Regardless of whether he actually is going to get rid of the inadequate setup himself. It's being bettered by how many devices under review in a row now?However, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of those fixated on Apple "magic" continuing their endless circle jerk. Somewhere else but in this forum would be nice though...
Edits: 12/12/14
You bring up an excellent point. Why hang on to his Mac Book Pro?
First, he has zero incentive to dump it as he has a steady stream of samples coming his way, so plunk down his own money for a steady reference seems silly to him I bet.
Second, let's face it, that is his music source AND his work computer. No doubt about it.
Another possibility is that he uses the streaming services as sources.
So in the end it is relatively cheap and convenient, which is not a priority I would want a reviewer to have.
Shouldn't be, but most likely is.
How they say - "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are different".
trend jumping.....
So many reviewers are comparing the wrong apples to the wrong oranges. What's ironic, is that many of them were reviewing and comparing the latest crops of high end/statement universal disc players 9 years ago.
Is the goal good sound, superior sound, or good computer sound?
If anyone is touting any computer, as a better, or even "well" engineered device: then they likely don't have much of an experiential history with computer hardware.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
The process of elimination is actually a step forward.
But what is the REAL REFERENCE, and who determines what that will be, and for how long? Until next week when there's a new tweak?
Coming up with a REAL REFERENCE as was proposed further up this thread is nothing but a circle jerk. Impossible.
Progress is being made.
Maybe some of these reviewers will be bringing out their disc spinners and comparing those to their computers and to their streamers.
Maybe, they grab someone's PC instead of just making blanket statements about their MacBook pro. Maybe, they'll try some of the optimization techniques, - instead of just walking their "work" computer over to the audio rack and plugging it in.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Hi,
By this definition my laptop in the office that is dedicated to music playback and has the OS stripped/modified for this job and does NOTHING ELSE is not a computer but a network/harddisk player.
And my Sony Tablet, when booted into Music Mode (yes, it has basically two user profiles and one strips it bare for music playback) does nothing but play music (cannot even play video), so it also a network/solid state player.
And before you say the "designed for this task" line, look into the network players available and demonstrate where their hardware shows appreciable signs to be based on general purpose chips, other hardware and general purpose OS.
By my logic however the ones I have encountered so far (excluding perhaps the Pono - I did not back the crowdfunding campaign so I do not know what is inside) are computers, BECAUSE they are based on the general purpose Computer/Phone/Tablet ecosystem, contain all the parts common general purpose computers do (even if some connectors have been omitted, the functions exist in silicon) use the same OS common general purpose computers do (even if some functions have been locked away they remain in the actual OS Kernel), BUT crucially they are computers that have been crippled to preclude general purpose use.
Claims for audio use optimisation I'd take with a large table spoon of himalayan rock salt (gotta be high end) unless they can be born out after examining the design.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Just to be clear... Michael has taken a commercial stance to help define and separate these audio devices for the average reader / end user.
He is not really correct and the car analogy is off IMO. The BOX that controls the function in a car is a computer. Surrounding this "computer" the car has much more going on. So it is correct not to call a car a computer...
But... Other than the case work... What do streamers have??? Engines, transmissions, suspensions... etc..etc...
Sorry about your flat tire...
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Just shows the MAC book pro is not very good.
What do you consider you SOTM Mini?
Latest TAS talks about the Window's configuration beating Mac in sound quality.
Was there too much hype around Mac or is it a usability thing similar to why the publications are trying to distance computers from products like streamers which are just dedicated computers?
PeterZ
Or could it be that Microsoft and Apple generally don't advertize much in Audiophile publications?
Just a guess. ;-)
traces on the mother boards, power supplies, etc etc, on this JUNK....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
No, if they are trying to "distance" computers from streamers/file players. which is total speculation, it is probably because their writers have not a clue of how to set up a computer for audio playback correctly.
You have Art Dudley reviewing 5 figure DACs and just last year he was using iTunes, had no high resolution files, and was using a printer cable into his DAC.
VERY interesting point. Never thought about it though you are also probably seeing a lot of ARM or Atom processors with a Linux derivative driving them such as phones and tablets.
PeterZ
Follow the money! ;-)
I think Abe got it right when he stated that regardless of the computer or OS, a decent DAC's overall sonic character will be heard across all transports.OSX and Windows do sound a little different from each other. Tweaking both operating systems can improve the sound. But remember, we are a hobby of small differences. Small differences to an average listener are big differences to us. I believe Robert Harley wrote an editorial in The Absolute Sound about this.
I also believe that one's system and taste will also influence what OS sounds best to a listener. I run both OSX and Windows on the same computer, and in my setup, I prefer Windows 8.1 64 with Fidelizer Pro 6.2. But OSX Yosemite with Audirvana Plus 2.X is not far behind.
Edits: 12/12/14 12/12/14
"Small differences to an average listener are big differences to us.."
And there is where it has all gone wrong. Different is not better. Listening for differences is the ultimate hell. You can't possible do that and listen to music.
I couldn't agree more.
Most of the small differences that I hear are minute compared to changes that I make to the recordings that I restore and remaster. In many cases these small differences are unrelated to realism or artistic merit. Sometimes they are differences in distortion and it's clear that both versions are unsatisfactory.
Worrying about these differences as a consumer strikes me as beyond idiotic. Some of these differences might matter to equipment designers or recording engineers, since the time spent chasing after small improvements can be amortized over multiple units. A consumer will better served by saving his money to buy more and better recordings and saving his time to listen to these recordings.
Of course it is possible that people are hearing bigger differences than I am. Perhaps it's because they worry too much and fiddle with too much equipment rather than taking the time to set up what they have in the most effective possible way.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What makes easier to get caught in the vicious cycle for CA enthusiasts is that comparisons are relatively easy and fast to do..switching playback software, comparing file formats, and endless other categories..
Where the disc and vinyl based audiophiles can do endless comparisons, they require system shutdowns, and quite a bit of lag time. Comparing cartridges, tone arms, power cords, speakers, tubes, and isolation devices are not instant A/B switches. Most just stop at a certain point.
I still try to make my own field recordings with reasonable gear so I can do just as Alan Shaw of Harbeth does, which have a personal reference. He records his daughters voice to help voice the speakers. Not state of the art, the being familiar with original event offers benefits.
I see. Making recordings accounts for your sanity. You have perspective and you have a real reference. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sanity? I am not sure.
You should see the looks when I bust out a reel to reel deck with vintage microphones on occasion..I might as well have had a wire recorder as far as anyone under 40 is concerned.
Most of the live recordings that I made were done in analog, typically on a two track Tandberg machine at 7.5 IPS, using a pair of AKG C-451 cardiods. I still have this equipment and used it to transcribe the 1970's vintage recordings to my web site. The piano recordings were pretty close to transparent when played back through a pair of Snell A-IIIs located a few feet from the piano, but only after quite a bit of adjustments to the microphone positions.
As a kid I had a wire recorder. Can you say wow and flutter, especially after passing a knot that had been used to splice a wire break?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
That is quite a rig...I wish I had a Tandberg..although my dad had one of their receivers..built like a Sherman tank.
I was amazed by this story. Woody Guthrie's daughter received an anonymous package in the mail consisting of a few cans of wire. She had no idea what they were, but it turned out to be the only known recording of Woody in front of an audience. The found the equipment needed to master it and it was released. She said it was a method of recording used in the 40's for just a few years before tape became the standard.
I got the Tanberg tape recorder for $200 second hand in 1975. The microphones were about $100 each. To put matters in perspective, my wife gave two recitals in Jordan Hall. The NEC recording department made these recordings of these concerts using the Ampex machine in the Jordan Hall recording booth. (I was familiar with this booth, at least as it was a decade earlier.) I still have the bill for each recording session, about $80 per concert, including tape all spooled onto 7 inch reels with leader tape between pieces.
A bit of history... I used to record/broadcast lectures in Jordan Hall at the "Ford Hall Forum" when I was in college in the 1960s. (One of these was given by Ayn Rand. Quite the bunch of groupies after this event.) I once made a live recording of the Boston Symphony Orchestra from Sanders Theater. This was just a matter of turning on the equipment and checking it out and pressing PLAY. The levels had already been determined during the rehearsal earlier in the day. (With a 2 dB allowance for the musicians playing louder in front of an audience.). Other recording sessions that my buddies and I did involved Bob Dylan, Doc Watson, Malcolm X and Benny Goodman. It was in the course of this work that I learned the difference between live microphone feeds (the reference) and everything else. The college radio station at the time was mono, so FM broadcast was at least decent quality. However, even then the difference between the signal up the cable to the transmitter vs. that back through the monitor was dramatic. Even full track 15 IPS Ampex 350 tape recorders were obviously not transparent to live microphone feeds. In those days we were using KLH 6 speakers for studio monitors.
At WHRB in those days there were two groups, the "techies" who built and maintained the equipment and the "control men" who ran the equipment, recording live concerts and doing broadcasts, live or pre-recorded. I was one of the "control men". We considered many of the techies to be sub human. Our basis for this was their obvious deafness. We were responsible for the quality of the broadcast sound and sometimes the equipment malfunctioned. Our job was to detect this and switch to working gear and then arrange to get the defective gear repaired or replaced by the techies. The usual problem was cartridges and needles used to play LPs. On more than one occasion we would summon a techie and complain that a cartridge was distorting playback. The techie would listen and say, "Sounds OK to me.". This is why we concluded that many of these people were sub human. When we ran into these problems we would solve them by deliberately destroying the defective cartridge, so that even a deaf "techie" could hear that there was a problem.
In these early 1960's days the equipment was mono and tube based. The electronics sounded good. Later after the studios moved, a new bunch of techies designed solid state equipment based on discrete op-amp circuits. Fortunately, I had graduated before this and subsequent sonic debacles. I'm sure that all of this new equipment sounded entirely "OK". That was the problem... I identify today's "objectivists" with the deaf techies from this earlier era. Their attitudes remain, even if their slide rules and pocket protectors are gone.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I got the Tanberg tape recorder for $200 second hand in 1975."
The Tandberg had good sound quality but the old joystick transport were sometimes finicky. The newer 3 motor 9000x was nice though. Liked the sound of the Tandbergs better than the B77 or the Crowns of the era. Could not afford the Crowns or the Revox as a teenager but a friend had both and also three Tandbergs. I owned a Pioneer RT-701 which sounded pretty good also.
What a great post. Brings back memories. I guess I get my love of recording and tape from my dad. He bought Revoxes in the mid 60s and recorded everything he could from radio broadcasts and he would haul it around and record anything, even lectures.
Do you still have that BSO recording? Did you archive to digital?
I think you make some very interesting points concerning mic feeds and the distortions that can occur going downstream.
I love reading about recording technology from that period.
No, the ultimate hell is posting about it on an internet chat board.
The MacBook Pro can sound vey good compared to the network players. Just a few tweaks :)
Haha. There we go...LOL.
.
What about this?
Search the archives
Is the Pogo Plug a hi end audio device?
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
