|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.65.244.108
In Reply to: Yes and No (Looooong) posted by valvesonly on March 16, 2007 at 14:26:56:
Sorry but I couldn't help doing a re-write. I used to write much worse than you and a friend suggested a book called Writing with Precision...read it and then come back to this post in a month. You will be amazed at the change in your writing.
Some hints on writing:
- "Less is more. Reduce and remove words to the min, if you can, but still keep what you want to say. Shoter is more powerful."
- "Break up a long sentance into smaller ones that re-inforce each other when read together as a whole. Combined they should be stronger and be capable of standing on their own"
I ran a similar group test recently. I have a ethernet connected squeezebox 3 driving a Theta Cobalt DAC (nice sounding unit). Also used was a first generation audio alchemy transport(the one with controller and transport separate), a Toshiba 3990 and a Sony DVD player DVP-NS725P.Speakers are ARD Concorde. Pre/power amplifiers are Steinhart (really nice tubes). The group were not audiophiles but have been exposed to good mid fi systems.
First off the Squeeze box is very convenient and sounds good. I use it to play straight internet radio as background music and ITunes playlists via slimserver. It can also play any ripped CD and can also create playlists on the fly.
The music
In short, the very old Audio Alchemy transport through the Theta DAC was a clear "winner". A new Theta Compli/ Gen VIII might even be dramatically better but look at the cost of competing units: Squeezebox ($300) or Toshiba 3990 ($50) and Theta ($10,000). The "winning" system at current Audiogon prices of about $250 would definitely be worth it.
The "long" of it:
Good as the Squeezebox is with its Burr Brown chip, the sound is noticeably smoother and richer through the Theta DAC. Maybe my ears like the Theta sound or are just too used to something "more" analog. Quality was acceptable with the Squeezebox and the convenience, once tried, is addictive. Sound is airy and detailed but light in bass (thru Theta)
Bad news, the Sony DVD by itself seemed to improve on the squeezebox. I personaly felt the Sony was slightly coloured. The Squeezebox without a jitter reduction device was at a disadvantage. The group felt it heard better instrument isolation and bass (yes they like bass). Interesting, enough, the Sony plugged thru the Theta Cobalt was voted to improve things, although the bass seemed reduced along with the colour. It had a more airy sound with more room around the instruments and less colouration, maybe the result of the DAC.
A note on the Toshiba 3990 vs the Sony. I have not compared these in detail but while the Toshiba sounds good, the X2 price Sony had PRAT. The Toshiba is closer in sound to the winning combination but the Sony strength was Bass and PRAT. The Theta removed ear fatigue noted when Sony played by itself. I will decide which to keep as a backup CD player this weekend.
When the Audio Alchemy was pluged in with the Theta DAC, the group that favoured the PRAT and bass of the Sony DVD, were swung to this system. So it seems that old technology, had a certain quality in its delivery, materially improved soundstage, but less bass. It won everybody over with sweetness of sound. The system sounds warm without colouration and without the often perceived ear fatigue of cheaper digital sound.
The clear winner was the old style, stand alone, hifi transport (The cheap new technology CD/DVD players are at a level that they were used as a backup or in playroom systems). It absolutely whipped an older Sony 5 CD carousal. The Squeezebox held its own for convenience but not sound. Adding a Audio Alchemy DTI in place it might shine but we did not have one available at the time. A full hi-end Transport DAC would probably be another level better but also more $$$ compared to the equipment tested. The sound was sweet and pleasant on the cheap Toshiba 3990 but I do not think the soundstage ever came close to say a $1500 vinyl frontend for instrument placement.
Follow Ups:
"Shoter is more powerful"
"Break up a long sentance into smaller ones"Your writing style also leaves something to be desired.
"It can also play any ripped CD and can also create playlists on the fly."
You don't need "can also" 2 times and playlists is not a word. Why not write
It can also play any ripped CD and create play lists on the fly.
"So it seems that old technology, had a certain quality in its delivery, materially improved soundstage, but less bass."
Overuse of commas, improper use of punctuation, and a missing adjective for quality.
So it seems that the old technology had a certain improved quality in its delivery; materially improving soundstage but providing less bass.
I’m not intending to get into a pissing contest about spelling and grammar, and I'm sure you can find some errors in my grammar as well, but my point is simply this. If I wanted to be the language police I would be embarrassed to critique a post with one containing spelling and grammar errors as yours does.
Herman...chill and think in the "spirit" of the advice. No police, here. Yes I could have run a grammar checker on my fixes, like you obviously did, and found errors...try that on the original post and I bet your favourite tool would've choked or come out robotic in tone.Spellcheck is not substitute for creating threaded text/thoughts that are easy to understand/powerful. This can only be attained by being aware of your writing weaknesses and by reworking drafts. The book would help, tremendously.
Like I said, my writing was much worse at one point. Man can not live on "valves only" 8^Q
I’m not questioning your spirit or intent, what I find bizarre is that you would take the time to rewrite his post to show him a better way only to have your rewrite full of grammar, style, and spelling errors.I completely agree that “This can only be attained by being aware of your writing weaknesses and by reworking drafts.” Why do you offer this advice when you evidently didn’t do the same when you wrote your critique of the rambling post?
No need to chill as I am not heated, but it does seem odd that you defend your poor writing by saying that it is better than it used to be and better than the other guy. You don’t seem to get my point. I am merely stating that you can't criticize poor writing with an essay full of errors and expect to be taken seriously.
"I’m not questioning your spirit or intent, what I find bizarre is that you would take the time to rewrite his post to show him a better way only to have your rewrite full of grammar, style, and spelling errors."
Twas rather strange weren't tit? :0)A private email to the writer with the suggestion of the book would have been more appropriate perhaps.
I hope valvesonly takes your advice in the spirit you are giving it. I honestly could not wade through that sticky morass of a post, even though I'm very interested in this issue. Thanks to both of you for the final result.Also highly recommended reading-"How To Write Good", by Michael O'Donoghue
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: