More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

<snip>
Im currently listening to choral music by Pallestrini written in about 1575
<snip>

That'll be recorded on a wax cylinder then?

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

Or were you being sarcastic?

Very much this - hence the

[TonyRPH]

This evening I have listened to:

A bit of Frank Sinatra (to say that it was recorded in the 50's / 60's pretty good quality*)

Tab Benoit

Joss Stone

Black Country Communion

• one has to wonder what sort of bandwidth the studios had back in those days - I'm guessing that much of the reel to reel stuff probably didn't get much past 15kHz, and what about the mics etc? Yet many of those old recordings can sound really good.

And then we apparently need at least 40kHz bandwidth today

[TonyRPH]

davepoth said:

TonyRPH said:

• one has to wonder what sort of bandwidth the studios had back in those days - I'm guessing that much of the reel to reel stuff probably didn't get much past 15kHz, and what about the mics etc? Yet many of those old recordings can sound really good.

There isn't a hard cut with analogue in the way that there is with digital - it's determined by the frequency response of the equipment, and certainly all of the best stuff being used was capable of responding to frequencies up to and over 40khz.

@toxicnerve - I was referring to frequency response, rather than sampling frequency.

Dave, one of the popular studio tape recorders of the era was a Studer J37. It's frequency response at 15 ips was spec'ed at 30Hz to 15kHz (+/-2dB).

Like I said in my post, it didn't get much past 15kHz - I was right.

The Studer J37 was introduced in 1964 - prior to that, some used an Ampex Sel-Sync 8-track. I can't seem to locate and specification for that right now - but I'm guessing that it was probably inferior to the J37.

[TonyRPH]

kayc said:

People who drive Kia's say the same about people that drive Bentleys to be fair "they all go round corners ..stop and start and are easier to park"..as i said before doesnt mean they are right..usually lack experience or cash dictates decision making!

And yet at the same time, some people genuinely say they can't tell the difference.

[TonyRPH]

I was just browsing theartofsound.net and...

theartofsound.net said:

I don't think there is any difference between USB cables with regard to data transfer, the data is either successfully transmitted or not. But I do believe there can be differences with regard to secondary effects introduced by the USB cable, galvanic isolation, RF interference etc...

I have an M-DAC which has the rather handy capability of a 'bit perfect' test, using pre defined sample files, both 16/44.1 and 24/96 are provided. I can achieve a bit perfect feed from my SBTouch into the M-DAC using a cheapo USB cable, and also with my £35 Kimber 1/2M USB cable.

However the Kimber sounds better, so I have to put this down to secondary effects, I've even bought a USB isolator, but I'd be hard pushed to say if that's given me any improvements...but as it's there, and it doesn't degrade the sound, I'll leave it in place for now

If the transfer has been proven to be bit perfect, how can it sound different?

I know this is the old circular debate going on here - but this mystifies me.

It's almost as if there's a belief that USB / digital cables respond to audio transfer in the same way as analogue cables do - e.g. excessive capacitance yields HF rolloff etc.

[TonyRPH]

This 'Ambient Field Conditioner' is a bit 'Zen' like.

Put it in the right place, and your sound will improve.

Yours for $1323.

[TonyRPH]

dudleybloke said:

i used to write for what hi-fi but changed to star trek as i was fed up with writing fiction.

Huh. Don't get me started about What Hi Fi.

"Which manufacturer are we plugging this month then?"

I guess the one that's paying the biggest advertising bill.

There was a time when every Cyrus product was the best, despite their CD player(s) munching CDs (literally) at an alarming rate.

Not forgetting that Cyrus themselves wouldn't even accept there was a problem...

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

They have a forum too.
Mention one bad word about Naim and you're banned.
Mention stuff about digital active speakers and PCs and your banned.
Mention something about someone who was banned and you get banned.
Mention, oh - never mind. It's censorship city there, no opinions required...

A truly pathetic magazine that makes the Guardian 'CiF' look like tolerance city

Yes! I am a member there, although I haven't used it for about 2 years now.

I noticed it was the same old people babbling on about upgrades all the time too.

There were one or two helpful guys, one in particular who did a really nice write up about Windows audio stuff - PJ somebody IIRC.

[TonyRPH]

Crackie said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Certainly not.

No, certainly not.

Just overhyped and overrated IMHO.

[TonyRPH]

kayc said:

Sounds like bks to me to be fair..sure it can be googled.

It happens.

Just in the same way that "high end" 'manufacturer' Goldmund took a bog standard Pioneer DVD player...





Added a fancy plate to the top of the mechanism and a new transformer (inside a posh new chassis)

And behold, the Goldmund DVD player at about 10x the price of the Pioneer.

And probably inferior in many ways, because of all the wires running to the rear panel sockets...




ETA: Original threads here and here

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 1st February 14:58

[TonyRPH]

Countdown said:

The "fancy plate" as you call it eliminates secondary and tertiary EM induction interference below 20hz and allows a much deeper coloring of the waveform.

HTH

I can't believe I didn't realise that.

[TonyRPH]

kayc said:

aizvara said:

Are you joking?

Not at all..they are rectangle yes..think 90% cd/dvd players would have similar internals

Apart form the toroidal transformer added by Goldmund (bottom left corner) those are identical.

And no - platforms are not *that* shared.

Usually only the 'no name' brands which cost £20 in Asda use shared electronics from deepest China.

[TonyRPH]

kayc said:

Just out of interest..what kit you kit have you got?I have lots so i dont have to be defensive or justify,i just listen to what sounds best..currently have speakers from £300 to £5k..Amps/Cd players of similar price range and some sound great and some sound st ..how anyone can find out without owning the whole spectrum is impossible..so whats the ultimate in your opinion?..bearing i mind of probably heard it or owned it!

I dreaded the day I was asked this on here..

I have nothing exotic at all - I simply can't afford it.

Most of my kit is modified / DIY with the exception of my Linn Keilidh speakers.

I also have some home brewed transmission line speakers, and various other pairs of speakers I've bought and kept.

But currently:

Speakers: Linn Keilidh
Amp: Home brew modules bought off Chinese vendor on ebay.
CD Player: Well - I have several.. Kenwood DP4090 / Marantz CD17 (heavily modified), Cambridge D500SE (modified to a transport only with reclocking).
DAC(s): Cambridge Azur Dacmagic (the first of the newer range) and a home brewed DAC bought from Chinese ebay vendor but modified.
Logitech Squeezebox duet (totally standard!)
Preamp: A Counterpoint (not valve) which was a surround preamp but has been completely modified into stereo only, and fitted with remote volume control (the original RC circuitry was non functional) and relays for switching inputs.

Some pics:

Power amp:



Preamp:



It's changed a bit since this picture - now has a motorised Alps volume control and a few other mods.

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 1st February 22:03

[TonyRPH]

I also once owned an XTC PRE-1 preamp - supposedly one of the greatest preamps ever...

However, upon examining it in detail I was left distinctly underwhelmed.

It didn't sound as good as expected, so I took a detailed look at the circuit.

On the back panel is stated: "Single ended Class A FET" but...

Here is the schematic, the only thing that's FET is the opamp which is a servo to maintain DC balance.

The actual 'single ended FET' output is a regular bipolar transistor (Q6).



In the picture below - it's possible to see two very small transistors near the centre (in between the 1W resistors) - with the outline of a heat sink on the PCB.

The transistors have G/S/D markings on the PCB - yet they are conventional NPN (Q6 on the schematic).

It looks to me as if XTC had intended this to be a FET design with heat sinks - but:

a) either couldn't get it stable or
b) decided it sounded better with bipolar transistors or
c) the heat sinked version was a higher model. (although no higher model is known of)

PCB:

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

Globs, this is worrying. I agree with you again.

I've heard several very expensive Chord amps and they all sounded very unmusical to me. Thin two dimensional sound.

Be careful David, you don't want to be setting a trend now.

[TonyRPH]

JustinP1 said:

<snip>

Read about it here:

http://hifipig.com/chord-cpm-2600-ntegrated-amplif...

Check the 'Reliability' section. The only problem he had was the same as me - the volume control kept 'sticking' when using it.

The reviewer called Chord and mentioned the engineer knew it was a common problem, and charged him £150 to fix it. I fixed mine by taking it apart, finding it was a JVC controller inside and that the problem was that the metal Chord button wasn't aligned with the JVC button underneath. I adjusted the position of the JVC control inside it, and put two AA batteries in it and it was good as new.

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 1st February 20:10

For such a beast of an amp, the power output is relatively low, and doesn't rise by much into lower impedance either.

Technical Specifications
Output Power: 2 x 120 W RMS into 8 Ohms
2 x 170 W RMS into 4 Ohms
2 x 220 W RMS burst into 4 Ohms
Signal / Noise Ratio: 93 dB
Channel Separation: 90 dB
Harmonic Distortion (THD): 0.05 %
Channel Balance: 0.01 dB
Chord remote control supplied as standard
Dimensions (mm): 480(w) x 138(h) x 355(d) Integra legs fitted
Weight: 20 Kgs. (incl. Integra legs)

[TonyRPH]

Crackie said:

Hi Tony, your IMHO caveat is important. The hype surrounding a product and its media rating are not objective factors; they are driven by subjective opinion. We're entitled to our opinions but the suggestion that ' A lot of Cyrus stuff is just rebadged ' is something very different. It is measureable and in this case completely untrue.

I don't own any Cyrus gear or work for them btw.

Edited by Crackie on Friday 1st February 22:07

You make a fair point, which is why I made a point of saying IMHO, because as I have stated previously in this topic, opinions on Hi Fi are purely subjective.

However, certain reviewers were very biased toward Cyrus gear I believe simply because it was British. All praise to them wanting to keep the home fires burning and all that, but they could have at least been subjective about it.

There was a time when What Hi Fi was serving nothing but praise on Cyrus products*, and yet other publications were less enthusiastic about them.

• The entire range - not one or two particular items. Sure, some other publications did give praise on occasion, but not sweeping praise to the entire range.

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 1st February 22:19

[TonyRPH]

Le TVR said:

<snip>
Pulled the cover off for an internal shot.



Even when building your own there are problems. Quality components and semiconductors are being 'cloned' by Asian companies and it is becoming difficult to ensure that what you get is really what it is labelled as. The Chinese have counterfeited many 'audiophile' op-amps, transistors etc and you have to be so careful where you purchase.<snip>

I know what you mean about the fake semiconductors - lots of articles about them around the 'net.

The modules in your amp - they look like an old Maplin module from the 80's - is that correct?

[TonyRPH]

Le TVR said:

Well spotted!

Certainly the PCBs are from there.<snip>

I still have the schematics for those somewhere.

I think Maplin (or the designer at least!) excelled with that design - it was certainly well received 'back in the day'.

I like the chassis you used for that amp - where did you get that?

I plundered a Rotel 6 channel amp for my chassis - I did originally build mine into a Cambridge A5 chassis - but lack of space was a problem.

I bought a 2nd A5 and was going to make monoblocks, and then found the Rotel at a good price on ebay so used that instead, and as a bonus I got a massive toroidal with huge current capability.

The other problem with the Cambridge stuff was the puny heatsinks. No small wonder they self destruct with such regularity.

The Rotel also yielded 3 massive heatsinks.

This is (was!) the original build in the Cambridge.

Edited by TonyRPH on Tuesday 5th February 10:49