 
|
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 |
216.209.33.106
In Reply to: Re: What's up with Stereophile? posted by John Atkinson on January 12, 2007 at 07:29:58:
>> Is Stereophile in some kind of trouble, I wonder?>No. It still dominates the US audio magazine market. It has more
>readers than all the other US magazines combined, even if you >include HiFi News and HiFi+.Gotta wonder where rumors start... have a gander at what Martin G. DeWulf is saying, seems to think you've been forced to cross over to the dark side out of sheer necessity to move sufficent newsstands copies failing which the good ship SF would keel over and disappear in Davy's Locker.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Follow Ups:
> have a gander at what Martin G. DeWulf is saying, seems to think
> you've been forced to cross over to the dark side out of sheer
> necessity to move sufficent newsstands copies failing which the good
> ship SF would keel over and disappear in Davy's Locker.
:-)
Mr. DeWulf has never forgiven me for besting him in a threatened
lawsuit many years ago. But what I found interesting in his essay was
the following statement, referring to the Sonos Zone Players featured
on our October 2006 cover and in the reviews section:
"what I really don't like about this whole cover thing is
Stereophile's willingness to use their most observable page for the
promotion of a product that is decidedly not a part of the hi-end."
Seems like the esteemed Mr. De Wulf is passing judgment on a product
that he has never heard and a product category that he disapproves
of. No problem in him holding such opinions, of course, but for him
then to generalize about Stereophile's direction and management is a
stretch, IMO.
The fact is that there are two areas that generate the most
response these days: LP playback and music servers. And regarding the
latter, one of the best-measuring digital systems I have ever
encountered is the new Slim Devices Transporter WiFi processor that
is reviewed in the upcoming February issue (and featured on its
cover). If my doing that also earns Stereophile Mr. De Wulf's
disapproval, I don't really give a flying fig if it serves the
desires and needs of my _readers_.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Martin De Wulf wrote:
> "what I really don't like about this whole cover thing is
> Stereophile's willingness to use their most observable page for the
> promotion of a product that is decidedly not a part of the hi-end."
I don't know if Martin DeWulf was at CES, but he would have _hated_
this exhibitor's room: http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/011107mfdac/
:-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I saw Martin DeWulf in the lunch line at 'The Show' He doesn't think much of me, either, yet I have never done anything to him.
Yes of course, I brought it up just for the amusment factor... but do try to bear in mind that "best-measuring" hasn't been demonstrated to correlated to "best-sounding" in any significant way, not unless you're been holding out on us for decades are about the pubish The Unified Theory of Audio... are you?:)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> do try to bear in mind that "best-measuring" hasn't been demonstrated
> to correlated to "best-sounding" in any significant way, not unless
> you're been holding out on us for decades are about the pubish The
> Unified Theory of Audio... are you?
No, I was being my usual coy self about a product review that has yet
to be published, :-)
But the point I wanted to make that even though I was feeding the
Transporter 24-bit audio data over my home WiFi network, with all the
possibilities for degradation that might offer, its analog output
resolution was close to 20 bits, which is pretty much state of the
current art. And this was even bearing in mind Charlie Hansen's
well-argued point about our systems being submerged in RF soup these
days.
And if you're reading this, Charlie, your guys got a great sound at
CES from Thiel CS3.7s using your MX-R amps. See
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/011207ayre/
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
As John noted in his blog; we demoed using wireless technology at CES. The Mirage was closer to an RFI *Stew* than a soup. Just for grins, we used an Apple Airport, Linksys Music Bridge, two zones of Sonos, USB direct, Transport + DAC, and a CDP as sources. Comparisons made for lotsa fun.Some observations::
1) when we ran two different wireless devices simultaneously, dropout would occur about 33% of the time. If we ran just one wireless device it worked fine 99% of the time. We heard from several dealers that wireless phones can also be a problem. Our phones at the suite were all hard wired.
2) The same files sounded a little better to me using USB direct off my laptop's hard drive to an external DAC's USB input than streaming wirelessly. I set up a comparison utilizing two different inputs on the same integrated amp. The background was a bit blacker and there was a little more "snap" to the signal as if there were better dynamics. However, while the differences were noticeable, they weren't large. Comparing a hard drive to the original CD was tough. I want to say that the CD sounded better....but each had their own strengths and weaknesses. More comparisons will need to be made. They certainly sounded different.
3) The Sonos user interface is too cool for words.
4) Ripping a lot of music on to a hard drive *forces* you to listen to more music. I can't explain it.....just do it yourself and see what happens. I've listenend to more music in the last 2 months than I did the previous 6 months. You get to a point where arguing with yourself over the relative fidelity almost seems meaningless. Wireless utility through a small high end system is better than "good enough for casual listening"; and viewing it as an industry phenomenon, beats the pants off any in-wall or in-ceiling speakers I've heard.
If the download generation embraces the concept of higher fidelity through uncompressed files, it should be very favorable to the high end. Hard Drives are cheap these days....there's no reason to compress files anymore, and if you do, use FLAC.
I'm encouraged.
< < And if you're reading this, Charlie, your guys got a great sound at
CES from Thiel CS3.7s using your MX-R amps. > >Thanks for the kind words regarding the Ayre room at CES. I didn't make it there this year because of my accident, but both our guys and the Thiel guys were also very happy with the sound.
And of course I'm reading this. To my way of thinking, you are one of the main attractions at this forum. Here there is a little bit more freedom for "off the record" type of discussions that I find quite interesting.
So here goes with one of those discussions!
< < But the point I wanted to make that even though I was feeding the
Transporter 24-bit audio data over my home WiFi network, with all the
possibilities for degradation that might offer, its analog output
resolution was close to 20 bits, which is pretty much state of the
current art. And this was even bearing in mind Charlie Hansen's
well-argued point about our systems being submerged in RF soup these
days. > >I'd like to make two points here:
1) I don't think anyone is arguing that using wireless transmission causes a loss of bits, or even enough measurable noise to translate to an effective loss of bits. But that is missing the point.
We (as an industry) are so far from understanding which measurements matter that it's almost laughable. Can you measure any differences in any piece of equipment by using a power line filter? Or by using different power cords? Yet we all know that these differences are easily audible.
So I don't think that the fact that a wireless system can achieve a high level of measured performance means much. In fact I think it would be safe to make a blanket statement that no matter how good the Transporter sounds, it would sound even better if it were hard-wired instead of wireless.
2) I would venture to say that removing the *last* source of high-frequency noise is going to make a much bigger difference than removing the *first* source of high-frequency noise.
In other words if your house has a Wi-Fi network, two cell phones, two cordless phones, and is surrounded by seven neighbors in the same building with similar setups, then getting rid of one of those things may not make such a big difference.
But if you are in a stand-alone house (relatively far from the neighbors' potential noise sources) with none of the above noise sources, then adding one of them may cause a significant audible degradation.
> > the point I wanted to make that even though I was feeding the
> > Transporter 24-bit audio data over my home WiFi network, with all
> > the possibilities for degradation that might offer, its analog
> > output resolution was close to 20 bits, which is pretty much state
> > of the current art.
>
> I don't think anyone is arguing that using wireless transmission
> causes a loss of bits, or even enough measurable noise to translate
> to an effective loss of bits.
There are still the local jitter-related spuriae and analog noise
spuriae that could degrade resolution. In my reviews of conventional
hi-rez digital playback devices, there have been some that produce
noise levels as high as the 16-bit floor when processing 24-bit data.
The inexpensive Pioneer universal player I bought to have on hand as
reference is one such, for example.
(And to clarify for others, I wasn't arguing that the communication
link causes the loss of 4 bits of resolution; I was describing the
fact that to produce an analog signal with a broad-band noise floor
almost at the 20-bit level from 24-bit digital audio data is about as
good as it can get at present, measurementwise.)
> I don't think that the fact that a wireless system can achieve a high
> level of measured performance means much.
It does reveal good engineering, I feel.
> In fact I think it would be safe to make a blanket statement that no
> matter how good the Transporter sounds, it would sound even better if
> it were hard-wired instead of wireless.
I suspect that that might be the case. I will do some serious
listening in that mode when I get a sample of my own to audition.
I only listened to Wes's review sample in WiFi mode and he wanted it
back pronto.
Wes' Transporter review will be in our February issue, which went in
the mail Friday.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
< < I will do some serious listening in that mode when I get a sample of my own to audition. > >I probably didn't make myself too clear in my previous post. I'm not familiar with the Transporter, but I would assume that there is a hardwired Ethernet connection available in addition to the Wi-Fi wireless connection. If this is the case, it is hard to predict that one connection will sound better than the other.
I'm further assuming that the Transporter is a DAC that uses a PC as a "transport mechanism". What I meant in my previous post was that using a computer as a transport mechanism is inherently a sub-optimal solution, and that a hardwired connection to a dedicated CD transport (if such a connection were possible) would undoubtedly yield superior sonic results. Here's why:
a) A typical modern computer has probably a half-dozen high speed clocks that generate noise. (CPU clock, memory clock, video clock, master clock, audio clock, etc.) These noise sources will couple to a DAC both via radiation and via ground coupling.
b) All computers use switching power supplies that will also generate high frequency noise. This noise will couple to a DAC both via radiation and the AC mains.
c) If the computer uses a wireless network connection (whether or not this is used to transmit audio data to the DAC), this is a local transmitter of high-frequency interference. Every single interconnect, speaker cable, power cord, and internal AC wiring in the wall will act as antennae to receive this noise and couple it into the audio system.
The bottom line is that it is unclear to me that your proposed experiment will yield any meaningful data.
I would further assert that any serious audiophile should avoid using Wi-Fi like the plague. Sure it is more convenient to avoid installing Ethernet cables, but if this hobby were about convenience we would all be listening to plug-and-play Bose systems.
means that when I want to listen, I can just go to the fuse box and open every other circuit in the house. This really cuts down on RF and AC polution from all the other appliances, dimmers, power supplies, etc. A good isolation transformer on the stereo line cleans up the AC polution from everybody else.If only I can get the city to approve my permit to build a Faraday cage around my house I will be in Hog heaven
Cheers
If someone installs a dedicated power line for their stereo, that is OK.But if someone chooses to install a wired network connection (instead of a wireless interference generator), that is so weird that you feel the need to mock them.
I guess I don't get it.
> > I don't think that the fact that a wireless system can achieve a high
> > level of measured performance means much.> It does reveal good engineering, I feel.
Are you attempting to be cute?
It's quite clear that Charlie Hansen is making reference to the lack of correlation between mesaurements and sonic performance, something you don't deny if I'm not mistaken, and there have been plenty of instances of "good engineering" not equating to "good sound".
This is common at the personal level (e.g. an audiophile may not like the sound of a given amplifier despite its great measurements), and there have also been cases of near industry wide consensus as well (early CD players); who can forget the constantly moving SOTA goalposts as indicated by products announced by Stereophile reviewers in the early digital years, the work of Robert Harley comes immediately to mind.
Personally I've witnessed a goodly number of reviews over recent years where your conclusions based upon product measurements have taken on a quality that I would normally have equated with someone the likes of a Peter Aczel.
I would think it appropriate you provide something substantive for the weight you now seem to routinely affort to good measurements, something beyond "It does reveal good engineering...", a rhetorical quip that say nearly nothing yet cleverly shelters behind a truism... who after all is going to oppose "good engineering"?
I seems to me that a not insignificant factor in Stereophile's rise to its current enviable position has been the respect it has shown for the intelligence of its readership... that's something you should be careful not to play folly with... IMHO.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
< < "best-measuring" hasn't been demonstrated to correlated to "best-sounding" in any significant way > >Yes, exactly so.
One known enemy of "best sounding" is high-frequency (out-of-band) noise. It used to be that most designers (and reviewers!) were aware of this. It is the reason that good audio designs avoided using internal microprocessors (with their attendant high-frequency clocks), at least until a newer generation of microprocessors became available that had a quiet "sleep" mode.
But it absolutely confounds me that people that are allegedly building "high end" products will include internal high-frequency noise sources as part of their essential design concept:
a) Switch-mode power supplies -- the only advantages of switch-mode power supplies are size, weight, efficiency, and cost -- *not* performance. These benefits might be nice for portable and/or low-priced gear, but not for a true high-performance product.
b) Switching (class-D) amplifiers -- same as "a" above.
c) Wireless products -- the RF soup we are swimming in has a large impact on the sound quality of audio gear. Just look at the sonic impact of things like power line filters, special interconnect construction (ferrites, extra shielding, odd grounding configurations, et cetera), speaker cable "terminators" (Zobel networks and/or network boxes), et cetera, et cetera. Adding to this RF soup with cordless phones, cell phones, and (worst of all) wireless computer networks, in close proximity to your audio system will demonstrably degrade the sound. Incorporating a wireless device like this directly into your system will have even worse sonic consequences.
The worst of all worlds is to tie a computer into your audio system. Then you have all the possible noise generators (microprocessors with no "sleep" mode, switching power supplies, and wireless networks) built into one box. It may be convenient, but this hobby really isn't about convenience, is it?
You tell "em" Charles! Hope you are doing OK.
Let's face it Charlie Switch-mode power supplies/amplifiers ain't gonna cut the mustard... until you set your mind to making then do so. :)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
