More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[budgie smuggler]

PhilboSE said:

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.

[TonyRPH]

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?

I think that dCS base their claims on the basis of a well designed transport.

With a good servo design, quality motors (both for the platter and the sled) it is conceivable that compared to a cheap transport, more of the original data can be retrieved.

Bear in mind, that Reed-Solomon error correction uses interpolation when the data becomes an unknown quantity.

So think of it like this: On the disk we have:

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

But an error occurs (a read failure due to a scratched disk or weak laser and the data cannot be read) - the following may* be inserted:

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

So technically, that may not be enough to fundamentally change what is heard, but no matter which way you look at it, data has been lost).

I'm sure that many people have experienced this with scratched CDs that won't play in one player, but apparently play fine in another. It's just that the second player is slightly better at reading the disk, so there is less error correction going on (but data as still be lost - it's just not as noticeable).

• This is how I remember the Reed-Solomon theory works, in the event of a 'non recoverable' read error.

With a perfect disk, of course the above should never happen - but apparently it does, according to some papers I have read.

ETA: To avoid further flaming - corrected DcS to dCS

Edited by TonyRPH on Wednesday 9th January 10:01

Edited by TonyRPH on Wednesday 9th January 10:41

[Super Slo Mo]

BliarOut said:

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.

Error correction: This doesn't mean that it actually corrects any errors and gives a perfect signal, more that it's a decision making process based on 'standard' packets of data. These 'standard' packets are sent alongside the original signal that you're transmitting.

There is a relatively fixed amount of bitrate that you're sending down a cable, and the more of this given over to error correction compared to original signal, the less detail that can be transmitted.

First of all, one's and zero's don't exist, other than on a screen or a piece of paper. They're states, so it's either a light on/off, or a difference in voltages (1 volt/0 volts, but could easily be 10 volts/5 volts, etc).

It's quite possible to get a received state that is, in the case of voltages, 0.5 volts, so it's neither 1 volt or 0 volts. That means the error correction software has to make a decision as to what voltage it should be. It might get it wrong, but for a relatively small number of errors, it's not a problem. For a lot of errors, you will eventually reach a state where there's nothing getting through, and for all points in between, there is a gradual degradation of the signal, which at some point becomes noticeable.

Because you're relying on physical signals (voltages mostly, once the laser has been converted to electricity), the quality of the components inside the electronics absolutely does have a big difference. A poor joint, for instance, or a poor quality cable, means that signal degradation occurs sooner, so the error correction has more work to do.

Ultimately, the signal will get more and more 'mushy' until it stops working. It's a common misconception that a digital signal is either 'on' or 'off', and while individual 'bits' are binary, and thus 'on' or 'off', it takes a lot of them to make up a signal, and we can lose a significant amount of them before the signal stops altogether. However, the received signal will suffer a reduction in quality, which becomes noticeable after a certain point, depending on your measuring equipment.

I can demonstrate this with an HD SDI video signal on a spectrum analyser, increasing cable lengths show a big difference in signal quality, although it's actually surprising how much can be lost before the video picture becomes problematic. Having said that, our eyes are not particularly sensitive, and we can pick up detail losses in the audio spectrum a long way before we notice picture problems.

To summarise, just in case no one can be bothered reading the above , component quality inside the box of electronics does make a difference. The old law of diminishing returns rears its' ugly head though.

[Globs]

TonyRPH 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?

I think that DcS base their claims on the basis of a well designed transport.

With a good servo design, quality motors (both for the platter and the sled) it is conceivable that compared to a cheap transport, more of the original data can be retrieved.

Bear in mind, that Reed-Solomon error correction uses interpolation when the data becomes an unknown quantity.

So think of it like this: On the disk we have:

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

But an error occurs (a read failure due to a scratched disk or weak laser and the data cannot be read) - the following may* be inserted:

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

So technically, that may not be enough to fundamentally change what is heard, but no matter which way you look at it, data has been lost).

I'm sure that many people have experienced this with scratched CDs that won't play in one player, but apparently play fine in another. It's just that the second player is slightly better at reading the disk, so there is less error correction going on (but data as still be lost - it's just not as noticeable).

• This is how I remember the Reed-Solomon theory works, in the event of a 'non recoverable' read error.

With a perfect disk, of course the above should never happen - but apparently it does, according to some papers I have read.

dCS (yes, not DCS or DcS, it appears I'm the only one here who actually knows how to write their name properly) claim extra revelatory detail, not better error correction. A 5$ DVD reader will still have a far more accurate laser, faster motion circuits and a bigger buffer than a 1xCD player, and yes it will have the 3 decades old error correction too, as well as some real data-class error correction for data discs.

The error correction argument is bunk, a decent PC reader doing multiple passes as varying speeds (which is usually a feature of rippers) has a much better chance of getting error free data from the disc.

But lets say the audiobuff looks after his CDs and these obsolete 80s throwback discs actually work as advertised then the data from transport A (expensive dCS) will be EXACTLY the same as from transport B ($5 chinese DVD-RW etc.).

In the binary world data is ONE or ZERO, and that's how it stays. D I G I T A L. Once in a computer system it is subject to layers of error checking to make sure it stays that way, so the safest place for a CD is being ripped and sitting on a hard disk somewhere, period.

custodian said:

The DCS disk players I have used are more than transports. Typically they will up sample to DSD and output by FireWire or up sample to 192/24 and output by twin Aes/ebu.

So one could argue that some of the Dac functionality is in the player.

It will also have a clock in arrangement to accurately synch with dac plus other components,

Some of the DCS disk players use asynchronous USB as an option.

I would have thought that some of the posters on here would have at least looked at the DCS specs and config before jumping in with both feet!

dCS, NOT DCS, and we were talking about a TRANSPORT, not a player, in the bullst thread, not about a player in the dCS fan club thread

dCS said:

Vivaldi Transport

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

I'm sorry but that's bks and if you don't agree you are in denial. Probably because money is involved and you'd like to think you are gettnig something extra above and beyond a $5 chinese mechanism, whereas the truth is that you are not.

I appear to be the only one who bothered to read the dCS marketing and specs, the only one who can type their name correctly and unlike the faithful can actually read the brochure and notice they are bullstting about the transport so don't tell me I haven't looked at the dCS data.

dCS join the ranks of overpriced hi-fi makers who rely on bullst and hype to differentiate their product from computer grade kit that is both cheaper and better. This is a hangover from the days of analogue but frankly in the digital domain you cross into IT/computing where we KNOW that it's bullst because many of us on here deal with this stuff every single day on a bit-perfect data class information storage and retrieval basis of tens and hundreds of GB at a time.

For us the CD is 3 decades out of date, lacks robust error correction, has a limited lifetime and storage capability and the thought of trudging round 1x speed hoping to get every bit perfect is a futile and pointless task when even a cheap laptop CD/DVD drive can get the job done with far more accuracy and speed while getting the data into the safe, error protected world of digital data storage.

I know you hate people like me but frankly if someone spends less on the parts where they can validly save money then that leaves more money to spend on amps and speakers. There really is an inefficiency is coming up with a more expensive and worse version of a commodity product that diverts money away from where it would make a difference: in the analogue domain.

[Bullett]

Up sampling doesn't find any more detail on the disc though, it makes stuff up and adds it to whatever is extracted from that disc. Once you have extracted a perfect copy of the data from the disc then (why do this is real time?) it will remain perfect until it is changed back in analogue.

My £10 dvd drive in my PC can get a perfect copy of the data off a disc, software exists to also check that data against other peoples rips. The only way to get a better copy is to get a higher quality rendering (SACD etc) or the original master.

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

I'm sorry but that's bks and if you don't agree you are in denial. Probably because money is involved and you'd like to think you are gettnig something extra above and beyond a $5 chinese mechanism, whereas the truth is that you are not.

Over time, I have read this argument on several occasions - I do believe that it has been proven that cheap mechanisms are more prone to relying on error correction, due to poor quality sled motors etc.
No amount of fancy servo design can overcome a poor quality mechanism.

And yet... There are some great claims made for a cheap JVC 'boom box' mechanism on diyAudio - just Google 'shigaclone'. Quite why an apparently cheap and nasty mechanism is so capable escapes me - but there it is.
It may well explain why some budget CD players sound far better than others - the mechanism perhaps.

Globs said:

I appear to be the only one who bothered to read the dCS marketing and specs, the only one who can type their name correctly and unlike the faithful can actually read the brochure and notice they are bullstting about the transport so don't tell me I haven't looked at the dCS data.

My fault - I just copied the way the poster I quoted had written it.

• Note: I am not a dCS fan boy - far from it.

Globs said:

dCS join the ranks of overpriced hi-fi makers who rely on bullst and hype to differentiate their product from computer grade kit that is both cheaper and better. This is a hangover from the days of analogue but frankly in the digital domain you cross into IT/computing where we KNOW that it's bullst because many of us on here deal with this stuff every single day on a bit-perfect data class information storage and retrieval basis of tens and hundreds of GB at a time.

But your argument is still flawed by the fact that a CDROM drive a) runs at 40x+ speed and b) it has the luxury of being able to perform re-reads.

However outdated the concept of 1x read speed appears to you - that *is* the audio CD standard.

Globs said:

For us the CD is 3 decades out of date, lacks robust error correction, has a limited lifetime and storage capability and the thought of trudging round 1x speed hoping to get every bit perfect is a futile and pointless task when even a cheap laptop CD/DVD drive can get the job done with far more accuracy and speed while getting the data into the safe, error protected world of digital data storage.

See above.

Globs said:

I know you hate people like me but frankly if someone spends less on the parts where they can validly save money then that leaves more money to spend on amps and speakers. There really is an inefficiency is coming up with a more expensive and worse version of a commodity product that diverts money away from where it would make a difference: in the analogue domain.

I do agree that ripping a CD and storing it on a computer is the way forward.

However...

Would anybody care to explain why I prefer to listen to the CD in the player rather than via my streamer (through the same DAC)?

Maybe it's a placebo effect - but tests were performed blind which should rule that out - i.e. the source was switched via the DAC and I had absolutely no idea which was which - and yet I consistently preferred the CD player.

For the record - the CD player is a 10 year old Marantz CD-17 - the streamer is a Logitech Squeezebox Duet.

DAC is a Cambridge DAC magic (1st generation of current series) and also other various home built DACs.

[Super Slo Mo]

Globs said:

In the binary world data is ONE or ZERO, and that's how it stays. D I G I T A L. Once in a computer system it is subject to layers of error checking to make sure it stays that way, so the safest place for a CD is being ripped and sitting on a hard disk somewhere, period.

Without wishing to get into this discussion, and I've got other things to do today, so this is my last post.

In essence, you can't send a ONE or a ZERO down a cable or fibre. You just can't, they don't exist. So you have to represent them as either light on/off, or carry them on voltages, so we're still subjected to the physical constraints of either medium.

Yes, of course, there are layer upon layer of error correction, as you say, so it should in theory, stay that way. However, it doesn't stop data getting corrupted on occasion, or lost completely. It shouldn't happen inside a computer (although it does from time to time).

I'd also argue that a HDD is not a particularly safe place for long term archival storage, but that's another discussion entirely.

Not that any of this is particularly relevant to the Audiophile discussion you're all having, so i'll shut up.

[Globs]

TonyRPH said:

I do agree that ripping a CD and storing it on a computer is the way forward.

However...

Would anybody care to explain why I prefer to listen to the CD in the player rather than via my streamer (through the same DAC)?

It's entirely possible that your DAC is using the incoming clock as a reference as to when exactly it decides to trigger the analogue conversion.
If you used a box/DAC to re-clock the data (quite a subtle tidying up of the exact timing edges to remove jitter) then you'd be able to present the same data and the same timing to the DAC, which would therefore create the exactly same analogue output.

It's also possible the squeezebox is adding some processing too. iTunes is fairly good at not doing it still but if you play an iTunes CD file (WAV etc.) into an Apple TV something somewhere (for instance) has to convert 44.1kHz to 48kHz, which if it does it at 16bits will cause changes.

[RedLeicester]

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.

'Ello Qube

And therein lies the fundamental difference between pro, and hifi. Should also be noted that whilst hifi does get obssessed with purity of signal path, they also strive on the whole for colouration, whereas pro is more about flat, clean response.

[BliarOut]

Super Slo Mo said:

BliarOut said:

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.

Error correction: This doesn't mean that it actually corrects any errors and gives a perfect signal, more that it's a decision making process based on 'standard' packets of data. These 'standard' packets are sent alongside the original signal that you're transmitting.

There is a relatively fixed amount of bitrate that you're sending down a cable, and the more of this given over to error correction compared to original signal, the less detail that can be transmitted.

First of all, one's and zero's don't exist, other than on a screen or a piece of paper. They're states, so it's either a light on/off, or a difference in voltages (1 volt/0 volts, but could easily be 10 volts/5 volts, etc).

It's quite possible to get a received state that is, in the case of voltages, 0.5 volts, so it's neither 1 volt or 0 volts. That means the error correction software has to make a decision as to what voltage it should be. It might get it wrong, but for a relatively small number of errors, it's not a problem. For a lot of errors, you will eventually reach a state where there's nothing getting through, and for all points in between, there is a gradual degradation of the signal, which at some point becomes noticeable.

Because you're relying on physical signals (voltages mostly, once the laser has been converted to electricity), the quality of the components inside the electronics absolutely does have a big difference. A poor joint, for instance, or a poor quality cable, means that signal degradation occurs sooner, so the error correction has more work to do.

Ultimately, the signal will get more and more 'mushy' until it stops working. It's a common misconception that a digital signal is either 'on' or 'off', and while individual 'bits' are binary, and thus 'on' or 'off', it takes a lot of them to make up a signal, and we can lose a significant amount of them before the signal stops altogether. However, the received signal will suffer a reduction in quality, which becomes noticeable after a certain point, depending on your measuring equipment.

I can demonstrate this with an HD SDI video signal on a spectrum analyser, increasing cable lengths show a big difference in signal quality, although it's actually surprising how much can be lost before the video picture becomes problematic. Having said that, our eyes are not particularly sensitive, and we can pick up detail losses in the audio spectrum a long way before we notice picture problems.

To summarise, just in case no one can be bothered reading the above , component quality inside the box of electronics does make a difference. The old law of diminishing returns rears its' ugly head though.

You wanna start talking hysterisis?

Speaking purely about the aspect of transmitting packet data (assuming that's what it does), if it uses a CRC just retransmit it. It's either a good packet or it isn't. There's more than enough time to resend a few packets without the human ear noticing

Outside of the binary arena, ahm oot as that has all the potential to be affected by noise.

[Super Slo Mo]

BliarOut said:

You wanna start talking hysterisis?

Speaking purely about the aspect of transmitting packet data (assuming that's what it does), if it uses a CRC just retransmit it. It's either a good packet or it isn't. There's more than enough time to resend a few packets without the human ear noticing

Outside of the binary arena, ahm oot as that has all the potential to be affected by noise.

No.

I'm far from an expert, but have a vague understanding because we design video equipment for Broadcast, and also have to deal with the issues regarding the practical transmission of digital signals over fibre, copper and RF (wired and wireless). Wanna try sending HD SDI over 200m of copper? It's do-able, just, depending on cable quality, connectors, etc. and is helped by sticking a re-clocker in line somewhere.

It just amuses me slightly when, and we hear it from 'engineers' on Broadcasts from time to time, they say 'but it's just ONES and ZEROS, so it either works or it doesn't'. When the reality is, particularly with HD, you can lose an awful lot of the 1.5 billion 'ones or zeroes' per second before it becomes noticeable visually (usually we get a bit of sparkling on the screen initially, or the odd 'flash' as the signal drops out and comes back).

[nonuts]

BliarOut said:

You wanna start talking hysterisis?

Speaking purely about the aspect of transmitting packet data (assuming that's what it does), if it uses a CRC just retransmit it. It's either a good packet or it isn't. There's more than enough time to resend a few packets without the human ear noticing

Outside of the binary arena, ahm oot as that has all the potential to be affected by noise.

I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, however there is one key point you're missing it isn't packet data, it's a data stream if we're talking about how PCM etc. works in home audio equipment so the error checking is not the same as you'd get over TCP for example.

[BliarOut]

200m? Shouldn't that be 185?

[Super Slo Mo]

BliarOut said:

200m? Shouldn't that be 185?

Probably. I've sent it further, but struggled. Having said that, we make a nice little reclocking DA, with a poweful cable driver on the output, that exceeds expectations generally. You can get more on Triax cables, as the quality is better, but then I've seen it fail at 75-80 metres on some cables. Depends on what crap the riggers drag out of the truck.

It probably doesn't help that broadcast stuff is generally outside getting rained on, and BNC-BNC barrels generally aren't waterproof, so after a few hours they don't work as well as they should.

[FlossyThePig]

I have got confused about "Jitter" and where it is introduced into the system. The error correction defined by the original Red Book means that single bits and even a string of bytes can be restored. I have read that the data lost from a 2.5mm hole in a disc can be recovered.

There is a story that a hole was drilled into a disc, which then played perfectly, as part of the Philips launch of CD players. Is it appocryphal?

StuH said:

FlossyThePig said:

Audiophiles don't seem to listen to music. They talk about "Presence", "Open", "Bright", etc., never "It felt as if was was in the middle of the concert hall".

Originally hi-fi was trying to get as close to being at a concert as possible. That is orchestral (acoustic) not amplified. I think that goal seems to have been forgotten.

You can always rely on Pistonheads to deliver these pearls of wisdom - priecless and utter tosh.

I've been cynical about high end hi-fi for a long time. Now I am deaf (just like George Martin, who is still producing albums) I like to stir the pot occasionally.

[Globs]

nonuts said:

BliarOut said:

You wanna start talking hysterisis?

Speaking purely about the aspect of transmitting packet data (assuming that's what it does), if it uses a CRC just retransmit it. It's either a good packet or it isn't. There's more than enough time to resend a few packets without the human ear noticing

Outside of the binary arena, ahm oot as that has all the potential to be affected by noise.

I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, however there is one key point you're missing it isn't packet data, it's a data stream if we're talking about how PCM etc. works in home audio equipment so the error checking is not the same as you'd get over TCP for example.

Lets stop talking about bit errors over digital networks shall we? It's just pointless crap that doesn't happen: the data will arrive in the buffer that feeds the DAC as EXACTLY the same numbers that were pulled off the CD, which are exactly the same numbers that were put there by the mastering engineer, whose job it was to remove all the dynamics and interest from the music.

As long as the DAC hardware clocks that (perfect) data into the DAC chip with a steady clock the analogue will come out fine, subject to mangling with filters and buffers on the way out of the box.

The money should be spent up upsampling properly, on the DAC, and then on the following amplifier and speakers. There IS no point in trying to pretend that an expensive transport is any different from anything else except being inflexible and expensive.

[Globs]

custodian said:

More of your total and utter garbage.

Ah - the real custod, Hi!

custodian said:

Is your hypothesis that DCS don't upsample properly?

dCS.

If you invented that from my posts then you may be the type of person who thinks different digital cables have different sounds
Where did you get that BTW?

Never underestimate the power of the mind and varying subjectivity. Self delusion in audio is no way to progress the art though.

[Super Slo Mo]

Globs said:

Lets stop talking about bit errors over digital networks shall we? It's just pointless crap that doesn't happen: the data will arrive in the buffer that feeds the DAC as EXACTLY the same numbers that were pulled off the CD, which are exactly the same numbers that were put there by the mastering engineer, whose job it was to remove all the dynamics and interest from the music.

As long as the DAC hardware clocks that (perfect) data into the DAC chip with a steady clock the analogue will come out fine, subject to mangling with filters and buffers on the way out of the box.

The money should be spent up upsampling properly, on the DAC, and then on the following amplifier and speakers. There IS no point in trying to pretend that an expensive transport is any different from anything else except being inflexible and expensive.

Out of interest, have you ever done any measurements or assessed anything using a 'scope, spectrum analyser or waveform monitor? Just curiousity, I'm not trying to ask a loaded question or anything.

[Globs]

FlossyThePig said:

I have got confused about "Jitter" and where it is introduced into the system. The error correction defined by the original Red Book means that single bits and even a string of bytes can be restored. I have read that the data lost from a 2.5mm hole in a disc can be recovered.

There is a story that a hole was drilled into a disc, which then played perfectly, as part of the Philips launch of CD players. Is it appocryphal?

CD error correction can hide certain errors, but when data is lost it is just made up. With Data CDs you get a read error so you know the data is corrupted, but for decades the CD has been cursed with a vague 'probably right' read mechanism, which is why careful ripping onto a computer ASAP is the best way to go.

FlossyThePig said:

I've been cynical about high end hi-fi for a long time. Now I am deaf (just like George Martin, who is still producing albums) I like to stir the pot occasionally.

I visit a few shows and they have some extremely good expensive systems.
It's not unusual to listen to a system costing over £50k to then be struck with the realisation that actually it sounds crap, then to confer with one's mate and decide that yes, it is indeed crap. Most decent systems seem to cost a maximun of £5k.

Too much playing with wooden beads, digital cable length and sad dull little boxes that cost a fortune but were designed by numpties distracts many in the hifi world from reality. Actually I say dull little boxes but the monoblocks murdering the music I heard were about £20k each and quite jazzy looking. They were still crap though.

Top end hi-fi ends up as a type of idol worship of kit, money, hype and names with sad people listening to their system via a limited array of crap music. To hide the emperors naked body they put everything down to 'If it sounds better it doesn't matter that we can't explain it'. Then you get rags like What Hi-Fi that fill all of their review with total dross of a nature even science fiction writers would shy away from.

It's a whole different world

[StuH]

custodian said:

At last we agree. Show dems seem generally to be crap. Hotel rooms are not a great environment, especially when jammed full of anoraks wanting to listen.

Don't you know anybody with a decent system?

Let it go Custodian you'll drive yourself mad with the likes of Globs. He's a troll - he doesn't seek to engage in a dialogue, he has no interest in any view other than his own because like a bore at a dinner party he just want to tell you that he's right and you are wrong. He comes to the discussion with a completely closed mind and no amount of pointing out of the gaping flaws in his "noddy' understanding of the subject will deflect from his dogma. It's when these internet "experts" start telling me they know more than companies like dCS that I stop bothering - what mind-boggling arrogance. Of course he's never heard a dCS system, likely never will, or a system of the quality of yours, but lack of knowledge on a subject or product doesn't get in the way of a troll in full keyboard warrior mode. For me the purpose of these forums is to exchange views and maybe learn something along the way - no problem with strongly held views and robust responses but expletive laden posts, with no effort to understand the alternative viewpoint is just tiring and ruins the discussion for those that want to take part. Also the continuous assertion that all us "audiophiles" are the dumb victims of unscrupulous evil high-end conmen is childish, simple-minded and insulting to the likes of Custodian who has spend his hard-earned on a pursuit of excellence in a subject that he is obviously passionate about. What right has Globs got to criticise this? Is it jealousy or just the sad British disease of being suspicious of anyone that pursues excellence? As it happens I don't currently own dCS equipment so I have no need to defend it. However, if i DID have the budget I would buy it in a heartbeat because having heard it in my system it is musical in a way that nothing else has ever been. It's music portrayed in a way that makes your heart sing, and reaffirms why we pursue this often frustrating and expensive hobby.

Re my earlier comment, just to be clear i wasn't claiming that their kit was finding "hidden" data, hence my comment re taking it "literally" - dCS are just saying that their equipment is revelatory, which as others of a more balanced mind have pointed out on my behalf, doesn't mean anything about revealing some hitherto unknown data buried in a digital file, just that it reveals more in the music. Hardly a surprising claim from an audio manufacturer.