More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[TonyRPH]

StuH said:

Globs said:

criticised the record industry

Globs there are some excellent modern recordings around as soon as you look beyond the mainstream releases.

I don't really get your attitude towards the recording and hi-fi industry - the whole evil record execs in dark glasses ruining CD's etc - it's a bit of a cliche don't you think? . For me the last 10 years has been one of the most exciting in terms the quality of reproduction available at home, with the rise of computer based digital audio industry helping to debunk a lot of the snake oil and pixie dust that used to be developed as high-end and now with just a "Mac & a DAC" you can have a digital front-end of a quality simple unimaginable at these price levels previously.

I agree - the biggest issue is still the 'loudness wars' and compression.

Much of the output of the CD industry is directed at mobile listeners with iPods / MP3 players etc., where heavily compressed source material generally works better (note I said 'works better' not sounds better).

As an example to this - I use a Logitech Squeezebox Radio as my alarm clock. The volume is set fairly low, and because of the high dynamic range of most of my source music, it does sound rather odd - and you don't hear the quiet parts of a song. I guess if I applied compression I would hear more of the track, at the expense of sound quality. This is exactly why so much music is heavily compressed now.

As for the 'loudness wars' - well, a louder CD sounds better, right?

I also ripped some music off DVDs I have - and recorded it to CD - this really showed what CD is capable of, despite the trend toward SACD / 24 bit etc.

IMHO, the true capability of CD was not really fully exploited in the mainstream, with companies instead switching to so called 'high resolution' formats such as DVD Audio (which failed), SACD (which failed), and then Blue Ray (although primarily for video - but it was mooted for audio in it's inception - but that never happened AFAIK).

High resolutions downloads are a good thing, however I've read that in the longer term the record companies want to force a 'pay per listen' format upon us, where we will never actually have a "physical" (either on CD or in a file) copy of the music.

[TonyRPH]

PhilboSE said:

<snip>

TonyRPH, why does playing a music CD need to be "real time"? A one second buffering time would be plenty to accomodate re-seeks etc (assuming the disc is not scratched to death).

If I decide to skip from say track 2 on a music CD to say track 10, there is a delay of a second or two while the seeking happens. Why would music listeners not tolerate an extra second delay before the initial playback?

Who knows? I guess the designers of the CD format could answer that question. Perhaps to pander to user expectations e.g. press play and music immediately begins.

PhilboSE said:

As Globs and I know, modern CD transports can get data off the discs with zero bit rates at far greater speeds than 1x. So I still can't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to have the world's cheapest CD transport that provide perfect digital data to an onboard buffer, and THEN you have a DAC that does all the clever upsampling and waveform generation.

If that isn't how it's done, and the current hi-fi industry is locked into 1x CD transports with real time streaming requiring error correction, clock locking, anti-jitter and and downstream processing, then IMO that model is simply not optimal. I wonder if that is how things are done just because it keeps the current industry fed and watered, requiring expensive transports and clocks to paper over the cracks of a poor architecture.

It was always believed that reading the CD at 1x provided the greatest level of accuracy - I note there is still some ripping software out there, that prescribes to this theory.

PhilboSE said:

All the mp3 players and streamers on the market will use an internal buffer as I describe, I wonder how long it will be before it is possible to attach a cheap CD transport to one of these streamers and they just access the raw data on the CD as a PC-based ripper program would?

Indeed - I recall audiophiles messing around with portable CD players several years ago (the type that have anti jog capability) as it was believed that these yielded better sound quality due the buffering. I still have one somewhere - perhaps I should try making a transport out of it...

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

This is really developing into the same old circular discussion.
<snip>
With this rambling post, I'm opting out of this particular cyclical discussion. Good luck in reaching a conclusion.

custodian - may I remind you of the flaming I received from you on page4 when I posted this?

One way or another - these discussions almost always end up going circular.

custodian said:

TonyRPH said:

May I just leave this here. (not audio related - but I think it conveys where this thread is headed!!)

Tony, thanks for yet another off topic post. Do you ever put your head above the parapet and post something relevant?

[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

[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.

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

Sir, you are a troll and a fool. Enjoy your trolling, you earned it.

I suppose somebody had to do it: (this is publicly available information btw)

Globs, aka Graham

I know this doesn't give his qualifications, but looking at his site etc. does suggest he knows what he's talking about

[TonyRPH]

custodian - As a matter of interest, are your patents in wireless technology?

[TonyRPH]

Ah, so it is you I have found on Linked-In - that's quite a career you've had.

[TonyRPH]

daveydave7 said:

And Dolby itself is a tone control etc ?

Dolby is noise reduction, it worked by boosting part of the frequency spectrum (high frequencies IIRC) during record, and then applying the opposite during playback, thereby reducing noise (tape hiss).

It is not a tone control by any stretch of the imagination.

Dolby Digital / Pro Logic etc. is another beast all together.

[TonyRPH]

OldSkoolRS said:

techy stuff

I was going to get technical but decided to refrain.

Now let's talk about DBX :P

[TonyRPH]

daveydave7 said:

I was just curious as when I had my Sony ES Tape deck I used Dolby B but no others
I remember reading an article about dolby and it was viewed as a "tone control" in the article

The article was wrong. Probably more audiophile bullst being spouted, there was a lot of it about in the 80's.

Not least of all about how bad direct drive turntables were blah blah - now the Technics SL1200 is suddenly the holy grail.

daveydave7 said:

Then I bought mini disc (yes yes I know)
No tone controls on my amp - nothing no loudness button
Anyway as regards Graphic Equalisers funny thing that hated by audiophiles etc (I had one then removed it myself) BUT damned popular and easy to shift on e bay
Just done a technics at xmas £15 cash converters purchase £75 e bay guy dead happy to collect drove from Burnley to Blackpool too - maybe it's the flashing lights on the front panel
I just don't get why they are wanted though if they were hated back then etc

Nostalgia.

They have no other use. Most of those vintage equalisers insert loads of noise into the system.

Others just like to have more knobs to fiddle with.

[TonyRPH]

OldSkoolRS said:

I wonder if you are thinking of the other controls that some decks had which were for tape equalisation: There were different settings for ferric, ferrichrome, chrome and metal tape formulations with (I think) the uS symbol next to them in some cases. My Dad used to have a huge Toshiba stack system of separates and the tape deck had those uS selection switches next to the Dolby on/off button.

I bought a Minidisc too. In fact it is still in my loft with a pile of brand new unopened blank discs. I also bought an SVHS recorder not long before DVD came out, though I was about to buy a HDVD player and left it until the next weekend and that very week it was announced that HDVD was stopping production, so I bought a BluRay player. Law of averages that I had to get it right eventually.

The uS was for equalisation - from Wikipedia

Wikipedia said:

High fidelity tape decks usually are built with switches or detectors for the different bias and equalization requirements for high performance tapes. The most common, iron oxide tapes (defined by an IEC standard as "Type I"), use 120 µs equalization, while chrome and cobalt-absorbed tapes (IEC Type II) require 70 µs equalization. The recording "bias" equalizations also were different (and had a much longer time constant). BASF and Sony tried a dual layer tape with both ferric oxide and chrome dioxide known as 'ferrichrome' (FeCr) (IEC Type III), but these were available for only a short time in the 1970s. Metal Cassettes (IEC Type IV) also use 70 µs equalization, and provide still further improvement in sound quality. The quality normally is reflected in the price; Type I cassettes generally are the cheapest, and Type IV are usually the most expensive. BASF chrome tape used in commercially pre-recorded cassettes used 120 µs (type I) equalization to allow greater high-frequency dynamic range for better sound quality, but the greater selling point for the music labels was that the Type I cassette shell could be used for both ferric and for chrome music cassettes.

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

.... old codgers... blah blah

Speak for yourself..

[TonyRPH]

aizvara said:

<snip>
I'd be interested in some form of "black box" type testing of CD transports. I.e. measuring the output waveform for a given fixed input over a variety of transports. No musical signal, just the digital waveform.

Take a look at the measurements done on the excellent Lampizator website. (toward the bottom of the page)

Ok, so the guy is a bit eccentric, but his site is very good, if you have the time and patience to browse around it.

He is (was?) a keen audio amateur who appears to have turned his passion for audio into a full time job now.

[TonyRPH]

OldSkoolRS said:

<snip>

I've changed to bi amping of my front three speakers.

<snip>

If you're bi amping from the same AV receiver, it's nowhere near as beneficial as using two completely separate amps.

The idea is that you have two completely separate amps powered from separate power supplies.

Many speaker manufacturers don't even support bi-wiring / bi-amping because for whatever reason, they see no benefit to it.

One of my previous setups had two amps, and I couldn't honestly notice any real benefit to it, except perhaps at very high (unsociable!) listening levels - not levels that I felt comfortable listening at anyway.

[TonyRPH]

aizvara said:

<snip>
There's a very interesting conclusion at the end there about the incompetence of the original engineers, re: the pointlessness of the i/o transformers and capacitors.
<snip>

For a long time, I have maintained that the coaxial spdif interface between CD player and DAC should be regarded in the same way as an RF transmission / antenna - i.e. ensure that there is good (perfect ideally) impedance matching between the two, to minimise standing waves.

I sometimes wonder if this is why the optical toslink interface does on occasion yield better sound.

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

<snip>
Can you even understand the thread title? Did the transmission of this post from my PC to yours colour the words and reduced their clarity? Because that's exactly what you are claiming for audio.

Globs, I seem to have lost a few bits and then gained some.

My digits are bust!!! (screenshot below)

[TonyRPH]

I heard a distinct hissing when I visited that page....

Then a pool of oil appeared.

Odd that...

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

stuff about caps

Thanks for the link - that's very interesting, and substantiates my own findings from back in the late 80's.

I was building amps and speakers back then (as a hobbyist - not professionally) - and found that Poly caps always sounded better in the crossovers and amps.

The electrolytics were frequently harsh, almost like the sound of a bad pop CD these days.

On the other hand, some of the so called "boutique" caps can yield what I call a "HiFi" sound giving the treble a distinct sheen like quality.

[TonyRPH]

I just found myself trawling through their website and I found another magical substance called "Black out series".

Now, I don't have a problem with screening as such - but quotes like this:

Audio Magic said:

Black Out Duplex's:
Starting with a premium Leviton duplex, we first cryo treat then nano stream treat... but we don't stop there! We disassemble the duplex and apply a vibration control and black out paint to all contacts inside the duplex and surrounding walls to create the ultimate quiet duplex. The hot and negative contacts are all copper.

So they apply vibration control *and* "black out paint" to a mains socket...

I'm sure the very short lengths of copper that "vibrate" really benefit from this treatment.

Utter, utter bullst.

But there it is - in black and white - and people must really buy into this st, given that the company is still trading.

ETA: And they really somebody to proof read their site. "Black Out Duplex's"??? Apostrophe abuse, pah!