|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.229.29.71
In Reply to: RE: Welcome to the world of fine sounding space heaters posted by E-Stat on January 21, 2017 at 07:18:02
Weird hobby huh? We argue daily about what is or is not 'optimized' in our digital gear yet we don't care so much about the preamp and amp if they 'sound' wonderful. I'm right there with you. I love tube gear, don't care much how they 'measure' if they sound right.
And then there are those who argue that our digital sources are not 'optimized' but they can't offer a clear definition, or even their own definition of what 'optimized' means.
Follow Ups:
The best way to optimize digital is to put some tubes in the box. :)
or tubes somewhere in the system, like the preamp and amp. ;-)
There was an editorial dividing audiophiles into three groups: Those who find source components most critical; those who find speakers most critical; and those who find the preamp/amp most critical. I cannot recall who wrote it or when exactly it was published, but it spoke to me.
I'm a preamp/amp kind of audiophile. That does not mean I don't consider each link to be important. In fact, I have heard a number of speakers I don't think I could live with regardless of the preamp and amp. But I feel like if you get the preamp and amp (or integrated amp) right, then you'll have a lot of flexibility in source components and speakers. And if you get them wrong, no system will sound right regardless.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I don't recall seeing that Stereophile article but I'm one of those guys who believes everything matters, but I place higher priority on some items vs others.
When I was big into CD players, they mattered a lot. I could hear the differences, but I suspect most of the differences were due to the DAC and analog output stage of the CDP. No preamp, amp, or speaker could compensate for a source that was not delivering at it's best.
Skipping ahead to computer based audio, I think most folks will agree that the music file and where it came from along with how it was ripped matters the most. I'm one of those. Basically starting with a good sounding CD then ripping w/o using lossy compression is vitally important. No MP3 or AAC files. Or buying a high quality hi-res music file is fine too.
Now we start to get into the religious wars in my opinion. I say the DAC is most important, along with good player software. Not the computer or the fact that it is a powerful or low-powered PC, Mac, Windows, macOS, or Linux. It's the DAC. Yes, you can tweak the Mac / PC for incremental improvements in sound. You can tweak the USB port, tweak power supplies and disks, etc., but the DAC will have a much bigger overall impact. That's been my take on it for years but others disagree and that's OK.
to that individual's thinking is that you must have models!
"In proper engineering and science, optimisations are arrived at via models."
Even then, having models doesn't necessarily ensure that they are comprehensive enough to include all relevant factors. Ask any audio engineer if metrics alone are sufficient to create results that are consistent with observational data.
Ok. What I model is the sound of live, unamplified music as I hear it in many venues. :)
I got it. And he's supposedly run all the models with their infinite permutations and variables since he's the authority on doing digital right.
We don need no stinkin models! We have ears. ;-)
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: