|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: A very nice interview with HP by our Teresa posted by Charles Hansen on March 7, 2007 at 20:31:36:
T. I have a lot of reservations about the new TAS but one thing I do still love is they have resisted the "measurement crowd" and still use human hearing to judge how well a component sounds. What convinced me the measurement crowd was wrong was at CES hearing earsplitting ugly sound for highly rated transistor components that measured superbly well and in the very next room was Cary Audio producing amazing life-like real music from dual-mono 28wpc SET tube amps that measured poorly. I remember early transistor amps had high levels of as yet undiscovered TIM distortion, when it was discovered this distortion could be lowered. Also early PCM had high levels of as yet undiscovered Jitter. I have experimented with the high resolution Digital formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio and the best offer sound that rivals the best LPs however for me there is still a "human" quality missing as if digital still has some undiscovered distortions. Do you believe digital will someday equal analog on a musical level?This is why I think making anything digital, when one doesn't have to, is detrimental. Be it amplification or room equalization.
HP: Well, I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, in the name of "perfect sound forever", we have gone backward, in terms of the "living Presence" of music to the early LP era. I actually believe, given wide enough bandwidth in a new digital system that this might happen. I say might because Sony's failure to stay behind the DSD technology, which its engineers couldn't perfect, which is why Ed Meitner was called in to make DSD sound genuinely better than either DVD-A, or red book CDs.
We've had this technology for several years. Yet it seems like only the those who can afford a Porsche can afford this playback system. And in my opinion, it's not really an advancement if less than one percent of us can afford it. (At least Wadia, with the fabulous 7/9, tried to bring budget versions to more audiophiles. But only the 7/9 had that incredible sound.)
And since I never had the opportunity to listen to one of these products, based on some of the disappointing digital I've encountered in the past, I don't even know if the technology is even legitimate. It could be yet another item that's hyped as an advancement, but just another overpriced boat anchor.
T. I do believe there are many sufferers of "Digitalis" of which I am one. I cannot enjoy music on CD, SACD or DVD-Audio from low resolution PCM Masters as they produce excessive pain in my head. In other words it is painful noise not music to me. However SACD and DVD-Audio from higher resolution PCM, DSD or Analog masters DO NOT produce this pain. Are you aware of others who suffer this malady and do you think the pain could be caused by undiscovered PCM distortions as alluded to in the last question?
I don't know if "headache" is the right word, but my experiences have been the opposite of Theresa's. Almost all of the digital playback that I think is bearable is with Redbook CD. But then again, I've also stated that less than 5 percent of CD playback is truly good. Maybe Teresa has never encountered it. (The problem I have with bad digital is my ears feel like they've undergone a root canal, and in severe cases my ENTIRE BODY gets this stressed pain.)
The other week, someone who had a multi-grand CD player of recent vintage emailed me to tell me how wrong I was in proclaiming the Who's "Endless Wire" as one of the great rock recordings ever in the CD format. A few days ago, I listened to the CD on someone's system, and I couldn't believe how awful it sounded on that system. Nobody was impressed. It took me a while to dial in something good on my PC.
Yet when I once again played it back on the main system, it was flashes of the Hollywood Bowl concert in my living room.
I was at the HE 2006 show in Los Angeles, where a recording by Usher Audio was very popular at the show. The recording sounded bombastic and spectacular on the vast majority of systems there. Seemingly the only recording that sounded consistently good there. I only purchased the disc to get a perspective of how my rig and system stood amongst the more-modern stuff at the show, with a SOTA recording. But to my surprise I played the disc on my rig, and it didn't sound like anything I heard at the Show. The "bombastic" sound was gone, the bass did shake the room, and the performers were merely "there." Microdynamics. More like the real thing. The problem is the recording itself wasn't as good as some of "non-audiophile" recordings I've latched onto. Including that "Endless Wire" recording. As if it was voiced to sound "audiophile" on an "audiophile" system. It sounds like a great stereo, but not like the real thing.
It's a different paradigm. Note I do have a nice vinyl rig, and it sits dormant while I play CDs. It sounds better, but the difference isn't worth the ritual when time is constrained.
HP: I believe the sources of PCM distortions are beginning to be well understood, if not scotched. But what many engineers are doing is "sweetening" the PCM sound by adding colorations that are designed to make the experience less exhausting, but, which, at the same time, remove the sound further from any known reality.
I don't think anyone is "sweetening" the sound. (With asynchronous conversion, I think digital sounds even more digital.) And I think "PCM distortions" are a red herring. I think the problem is most OTS chips used for digital and CD playback have been grossly disappointing. For the few playback rigs that do get it right, it's a revelation. And it seems like there has been avoid between the rigs that get it right (Wadia 9, Prism, early-90's Philips, etc.) and the rigs that don't.
The one thing I am personally troubled about is this growing belief that "PCM digital" is somehow more-fatiguing than "DSD digital". Now I have not heard DSD digital, but I think such spreading of generalizations is dangerous, simply because there is no scientific basis of it being true. And since the alternative technology is hideously-expensive, not many audiophiles will be able to find out on their own. (I'm afraid this could end up being "ASRC II"....)
There are two basic problems with digital playback- RFI and digital filtering of Redbook CDs. The former cannot be eliminated, but can be minimized by using electronics of low power running at near-minimum settings. The latter I think has vast room for improvement, if somehow, custom algorithms are devised and that "zero phase error" isn't religiously adhered to. (If I designed a FIR function for a custom algorithm, the leading edge would be "Lanczos2", the trailing edge would be "Lanczos5".)
T. How do you feel about "the absolute sound" system recommendations such as, "Six Overachieving Audio Systems You Can Afford" by Chris Martens, in which the only recommended front end is low resolution CDs priced up to $1,000? When there are many excellent turntables and even SACD / DVD-Audio universal players that also play CD in that price range. To me it is a statement that everyone needs a CD player, which I find not only untrue but insulting as well. What are your feelings on these issues?
For under $1000, I'd personally recommend just CD for the source. (If not that, add an FM tuner.) It's the only means to get near-absolute performance in that price range. (Teresa should really try Don Allen's modified player.) Vinyl is not refined enough in that price range, and I prefer Don Allen's sub-grand CD changer over any high rez rig and most multi-grand CD playback rigs I've encountered.
HP: As a practical matter, he is probably on solid ground (for now) saying just that. These systems, as I understand it, were not designed for Old Hands at audio; much less devotees of live music. The systems listed in the review were not evaluated as systems, but rather on the basis of the separate components that made up such systems.
Which is the wrong way to construct a system, in my opinion. Two respected components may be incompatible with each other, due to impedance or interface anomalies.
T. As you may know the famous engineer Tony Faulkner who has made many recordings in 192kHz PCM and DSD has re-discovered 2 Track 15 IPS Analog and finds it sonically superior and more musical than any of the high resolution digital formats. He is making back-up analog tapes for high resolution Digital recordings done for his clients. And will be negotiating release of these on LP. Do you feel other engineers will have similar epiphanies and switch back to analog recording for the sake of the music?
HP: Let us hope and pray.
That right. And hopefully, when the 192 kHz PCM and DSD gets transferred to vinyl, maybe they'll realize active digitization is where the problem lies, for the vinyl playback I think if anything should be superior to a like pressing using 15 ips analog tape. This also presumes the signal isn't getting mangled in the bits, which isn't guaranteed.
The one thing I do agree with in the article is that fewer people are getting the opportunity to experience non-amplified music, hence fewer people are able to judge sound on a true reference of the real thing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: A very nice interview with HP by our Teresa - Todd Krieger 01:03:14 03/09/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
