More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[BliarOut]

StuH said:

Globs said:

Excellent appeal to authority there!

So can you tell me where the extra detail is hidden in a 16bit CD?
In each word there is 16 bits:

b15 b14 b13 b12b b11 b10 b9 b8 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0

So where is the extra revelatory detail stored Stu? Please enlighten us with your high-end wisdom.

Are you kidding me? Do you think it's quite that literal

If you think that you know more about digital reproduction than DcS then good luck to you. I make my own mind up based on posters contributions as to whether I see merit in their contribution, so like custodian I'll leave your insights for others to enjoy and withdraw myself from this particular discussion.

Err, data is data...

Shame, I'd like to see your explanation

[Globs]

BliarOut said:

StuH said:

Globs said:

Excellent appeal to authority there!

So can you tell me where the extra detail is hidden in a 16bit CD?
In each word there is 16 bits:

b15 b14 b13 b12b b11 b10 b9 b8 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0

So where is the extra revelatory detail stored Stu? Please enlighten us with your high-end wisdom.

Are you kidding me? Do you think it's quite that literal

If you think that you know more about digital reproduction than DcS then good luck to you. I make my own mind up based on posters contributions as to whether I see merit in their contribution, so like custodian I'll leave your insights for others to enjoy and withdraw myself from this particular discussion.

Err, data is data...

Shame, I'd like to see your explanation

Yes Stu it is indeed that literal, data is data, and that quote is about a CD transport, a device whose sole purpose is to extract 16 bits words from CDs and send them down a digital link.

So how does the magic of dCS get that extra revelatory detail Stu?
Or is it just so much bullst again from another marketing driven tech firm that feels the need for hype and drivel to push it's ordinary gear beyond its natural price point?

[The_Burg]

A very interesting discussion going on here.
Still haven't answered the big question for the 3rd time, WTF do you listen too?
I'm fairly well versed in the CD standard and have a reasonable understanding of the analogue and mechanical aspects.

My big issue is what on earth do you listen too, (4x now).
Recent stuff is so terribly mastered i cannot bear to listen, most regularly played CD's, (well RIPs now but that's where they started), are early 90's at the latest.

Actually here is a question, what would sound better? A £kkk system playing a modern loud compressed appalling CD compared to a £1k system playing a well recorded CD. There are plenty of 're-masters' that have been done to use for source.

Another one is Californication, a new low in quality. The mp3 128k unmastered version i'm sure many have which sounds so much better, night and day in fact, yet is actually a very lossy low res recording but i can listen and want to turn it up whereas the terrible CD sits on the shelf gathering dust unplayable even in the car.

[nonuts]

The_Burg said:

My big issue is what on earth do you listen too, (4x now).

There are people that actually care about making decent recordings, take a look at the Linn, Naim and B&W websites were studio master quality downloads are available. Also I believe there is a huge difference between a CD / LP / WAV file that someone had quality in mind from the recording onward to some pop st that is only ever going to be played on the radio.

I'm not a huge fan of classical music, but if you are, and you are a HiFi nut there are plenty of good quality recordings available. The likes of Linn etc. are expanding their collection of high resolution downloads the whole time as well.

That's not even going near LPs where most of them that are now made (especially those that aren't sold in HMV) are actually done with quality in mind.

[The_Burg]

It would be nice to have more choice though, many times you hear a tune on the radio and enjoy it, back in the day you then bought the CD. These days i download as many do, i'd gladly by the CD if it was of a tolerable quality. Sadly they aren't and i haven't bought a CD for many years nor listened to anything recorded in recent times.

I'd love to go back to the late 80s early 90s and buy a CD every week.

[Globs]

All good points Burg, I agree the modern state of the CD is terrible. And yes - I have several 128k mp3s that sound far better than some CDs just because of the mastering.

Not sure we wanted to know what I listened to in particular but here is a list...
My listening varies quite a bit and spans a range of stuff. Faves are:

Fiona Apple (except the latest speaky album)
Katie Melua (live stuff best)
Norah Jones (live stuff best, except "The Fall" is unlistenable - worse mastering that Californication - by a long way)
Liz Phair
Rolling Stones
Status Quo
Pink Floyd
Half man half biscuit
Pink
Sarah McLachlan
Jewel
Jem
AC/DC
Tom Petty
Serebro
Rainbow
Garbage
No Doubt
Steve Miller Band
Dire Straits
Velvet Underground
ZZ Top
Led Zep.
Deep Purple (live is best - Live at Montreaux rocks!)
Stereophonics
Muse
L. Skynrd
Kinks
Moby
MissTeeq
Girls Aloud (Neighbourhood is the best recorded)
Meredith Brooks
Lily Allen
Lana Del Ray
KT Tunstall
Jennifer Kimball
Easy easy all stars
Grateful Dead
Genesis (LLDOB, TTWT best)
Gabrielle (Rise)
Fleetwood Mac
Fatboy Slim
ELO
Travelling Wilburys
Blondie
Christina Perry
Cheap Trick
The Cardigans
Blackmore's Night
Billy Idol
The Beatles
Anneke Von Giersburgen
Alisha's Attic
All Saints
Alexandra Stan
Alicia Keys

I have them all on iTunes and at the touch of a button they appear as if by magic from the speakers

[JDFR]

StuH said:

Are you kidding me? Do you think it's quite that literal

If you think that you know more about digital reproduction than DcS then good luck to you. I make my own mind up based on posters contributions as to whether I see merit in their contribution, so like custodian I'll leave your insights for others to enjoy and withdraw myself from this particular discussion.

Would you mind entertaining me then? I always thought a CD had data on it and it was read by a laser. The data on the CD can't change, so what extra data can be extracted by DcS?

[PJ S]

JDFR said:

Would you mind entertaining me then? I always thought a CD had data on it and it was read by a laser. The data on the CD can't change, so what extra data can be extracted by DcS?

Where's this "extra" coming from?
Think you're making up things instead of reading the correct words - the word was "extracts", nothing about extra anything!

Anyway, Stu's already answered that earlier.

StuH said:

Same room, same DAC, same system, same audio track, same ears, direct a/b, level matched - DIFFERENT source component - very different audio........

[Globs]

PJ S said:

JDFR said:

Would you mind entertaining me then? I always thought a CD had data on it and it was read by a laser. The data on the CD can't change, so what extra data can be extracted by DcS?

Where's this "extra" coming from?

dCS_Brochure said:

Vivaldi Transport

• Extracts revelatory levels of detail from both CD and SACD.

Think you're making up things instead of reading the correct words - the word was "extracts", nothing about extra anything!
Anyway, Stu's already answered that earlier.

StuH said:

Same room, same DAC, same system, same audio track, same ears, direct a/b, level matched - DIFFERENT source component - very different audio........

That's not an answer, that's vague subjective wibble with hundreds of variables.
We are using mathematics and logic to challenge the dCS bullst marketing (as per the thread title in fact).

Anyway the phrase 'revelatory levels of detail' implies it finds more detail than a regular $5 transport which is puzzling. StuH's actual answer was a pitiful plea to authority that dCS were great.

• I wanted him to explain how the dCS managed to get that extra 'revelatory levels of detail'.
• He failed.
• It's bullst.

[PJ S]

Well, since Stu doesn't work for dCS, perhaps the best place to find an answer to your question is direct from the source?
Wasn't the thread topic in relation to a mains power conditioner, not digital optical drives and quantisation?

Not sure there's any benefit to a person explaining why they spent their money on something that they derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from, irrespective of the cost to their bank balance.
High end audio is no different from having an appreciation of fine art, historical artefacts, antique furniture, and watches - there's beauty in the design of the item, even if it's nothing more than thick machined aluminium and glass/perspex surrounding a £100-200 worth of electronic components.

[JDFR]

PJ S said:

JDFR said:

Would you mind entertaining me then? I always thought a CD had data on it and it was read by a laser. The data on the CD can't change, so what extra data can be extracted by DcS?

Where's this "extra" coming from?
Think you're making up things instead of reading the correct words - the word was "extracts", nothing about extra anything!

I think it's a bit rude to saying I am making things up, especially when it's not true.

The quote is "extract revelatory levels of detail"

A quick Google gives a definition of revelatory as "revealing something hitherto unknown".

So my question still stands ... could someone explain what level of detail can be extracted from a CD that other CD players could not extract?

[Crackie]

JDFR said:

I think it's a bit rude to saying I am making things up, especially when it's not true.

The quote is "extract revelatory levels of detail"

A quick Google gives a definition of revelatory as "revealing something hitherto unknown".

So my question still stands ... could someone explain what level of detail can be extracted from a CD that other CD players could not extract?

I don't think there is a suggestion that additional 'red book' information is being read from the disc is there ??.

[JDFR]

Crackie said:

I don't think there is a suggestion that additional 'red book' information is being read from the disc is there ??.

Well they appear to be selling merely a transport mechanism so if that is the case, how can it reveal detail that previously wasn't there? I would understand the DAC part doing that (to an extent) but the transport?

[Countdown]

PJ S said:

Well, since Stu doesn't work for dCS, perhaps the best place to find an answer to your question is direct from the source?
Wasn't the thread topic in relation to a mains power conditioner, not digital optical drives and quantisation?

.

I thought it was about audiophile “snake oil” in general.

PJ S said:

Not sure there's any benefit to a person explaining why they spent their money on something that they derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from, irrespective of the cost to their bank balance.
High end audio is no different from having an appreciation of fine art, historical artefacts, antique furniture, and watches - there's beauty in the design of the item, even if it's nothing more than thick machined aluminium and glass/perspex surrounding a £100-200 worth of electronic components.

That’s perfectly fine - it suggests that appreciation of high end audio is subjective rather than objective. However what we have on this thread are people suggesting that certain components make “objective” differences to the quality of sound being produced. In my view if a gizmo such as a “Liquid Air Filter” or “Gold plates HDMI cable” or a “Flux Convertor” is sold on the basis that it makes a difference to the quality of sound then this difference should be measurable and quantifiable.

[Monty Python]

JDFR said:

Well they appear to be selling merely a transport mechanism so if that is the case, how can it reveal detail that previously wasn't there? I would understand the DAC part doing that (to an extent) but the transport?

Getting the data off the disc isn't the only thing a transport does - the circuitry between it and the outputs, the quality of components, the PCB layout, the presence/absence of shielding all have an effect on the signal.

Most of it is marketing BS to justify the price, as almost all the top-flight manufacturers claim almost exactly the same thing.

[BliarOut]

Monty Python said:

JDFR said:

Well they appear to be selling merely a transport mechanism so if that is the case, how can it reveal detail that previously wasn't there? I would understand the DAC part doing that (to an extent) but the transport?

Getting the data off the disc isn't the only thing a transport does - the circuitry between it and the outputs, the quality of components, the PCB layout, the presence/absence of shielding all have an effect on the signal.

Most of it is marketing BS to justify the price, as almost all the top-flight manufacturers claim almost exactly the same thing.

While its a bitstream it's either right or wrong. That's the beauty of binary.

I fully accept that once it's analogue all manner of factors could come into play but while its binary and has error checking and recovery in the transport protocol you could use bell wire and it wouldn't make a jot of difference.

[Disastrous]

qube_TA said:

What I don't understand is that if you're a musician you might buy something like one of these to plug into your computer: http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/focusrite-s... These will give you a high resolution DAC/ADC 24bit / 96KHz multichannel interface for recording/playing back your music. However they're perfectly good for playing any digital audio from your computer regardless of its format or source. I have a modest hi-fi; Marantz PM17 amp, CD63 CD, Linn Sondek, B&W 603 speakers. It sounds OK, it's getting old now, but it's fine, however my Mac, plugged into a similar interface as above with some active monitors connected via balanced outputs kicks the crap out of it for sound quality, clarity etc, yet it was a fraction of the cost, the audio interface costs pennies compared to a hi-fi DAC that wouldn't have anything like the flexibility or the low latency. If you buy an ultra expensive studio interface the cost would be down to the fact it can handle a large number of simultaneous audio I/O with very litle latency. The difference in price seems to be purely down to the fact that one is aimed at a musician and the other to an audiophile hi-fi person.
Incidentally the obsession with cables, sockets, epic power supplies, mains conditioners etc just doesn't exist in a studio where the music that we listen to is recorded. In the studio you'll spend money on making sure there are no reflections, earth loops, interference etc, the position of equipment, but you're never going to fret about buying a special silver plated mains cable or lead for a microphone or guitar. I'd be surprised if there's any studio equipment that has the same audiophile mentality as the super high-end Hi-Fi world. An audiophile strives for a pure signal path with minimal electronics for the signal to pass through, yet during recording of the album the signal goes through an incredible amount of electronics, connectors, cables, with bucketfuls of compressors, post-processing and dithering before a master is pressed onto a disc. I used to be into hi-fi a lot and spent a lot of money trying to get that perfect sound, but when I got into music production and sound engineering it became apparent that the obsessive regard for audio perfection doesn't exist in the studio so these tiny nuances of sound were lost early on in the recording process and an engineer mixed and compressed the audio to make it compatible with most systems and not the chap with the £50K+ ultra system. If you were able to buy media specifically mixed for such systems I'd imagine they'd sound fantastic but those are unlikely.

I agree with this. I have what I suppose would be a low end hifi, but came to it after studying Audio Engineering (as in a studio environment).

I could never understand what extra 'detail' audiophiles were after when most recordings are made on kit waaaay inferior (in pricing terms!) to the playback system.

It would make more sense surely, to replicate the studio desk monitor outs, amp and monitors, wouldn't it?

[Watchman]

Fascinating discussion. I used to be in audiophile territory with my bi-amped kit but years of playing in bands and recording in some decent studios left me with two considerations:

1. As mentioned, studio kit isn't audiophile. It's low noise, yes, but hardly the minimal path approach audiophiles seek

2. Playing loud gigs has left me unable to really tell the difference between a quality recording/playback next to something that's just loud

It's been quite a revelation to me. I have stopped listening to my hardware these days and now concentrate on the music. My only conceit is that a system needs to be powerful and the music played loud which isn't often possible at home. So I tend to do most of my listening in the car where I can turn it up.

[BliarOut]

Watchman said:

Fascinating discussion. I used to be in audiophile territory with my bi-amped kit but years of playing in bands and recording in some decent studios left me with two considerations:

1. As mentioned, studio kit isn't audiophile. It's low noise, yes, but hardly the minimal path approach audiophiles seek

2. Playing loud gigs has left me unable to really tell the difference between a quality recording/playback next to something that's just loud

It's been quite a revelation to me. I have stopped listening to my hardware these days and now concentrate on the music. My only conceit is that a system needs to be powerful and the music played loud which isn't often possible at home. So I tend to do most of my listening in the car where I can turn it up.

Listening to Hendrix on high end kit is the definition of insanity

[PhilboSE]

Monty Python said:

Getting the data off the disc isn't the only thing a transport does - the circuitry between it and the outputs, the quality of components, the PCB layout, the presence/absence of shielding all have an effect on the signal.

When it's in the analogue domain.

While it remains in the digital domain, there is absolutely no reason why the data should not represent the source CD data flawlessly.

What happens in a streamer that's playing back an mp3 is that it fetches a chunk of the mp3 data, decompresses it back to an internal buffer to something resembling the original source, and then the DAC will do it's magic to generate an analogue waveform.

It would cost no more than the price of a cheap CD transport, and some very simple firmware, to add a disc spinner to the streamer and then read the CD data into the very same buffer that the DAC could work from. This would enable whoever made such a device to claim (correctly) that the resultant data given to the DAC would be guaranteed to be free from errors and jitter.

I suspect that such a device would not be well received by the hi-fi crowd, however, because of their vested interest and faith in current configurations. The sound generated by such a device would be entirely dependent on the quality of the DAC and the downstream components (amp, speakers), yet know that people would still suggest that a £3000 CD transport separate attached to a DAC with synched clocks would get more "detail" from the source.