 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that the long post above I wrote to ado was duplicated right here (fourteen minutes after I posted it and 9 minutes after bue15 posted his comment!), although I only posted it once, though I did go back again and again to edit it. I've always blamed members for posting the same thing more than once, but am now embarrassed that I chided them for something that is probably a flaw in the system here. (Originally wrote that it was probably endemic to the system, but that may be a stretch.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 30, 2013 - 8:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Marlene
(Member)
|
How did I miss this discussion?
For several years now I´ve felt that the audio quality we are able to reach today is by far superior to anything produced 30 years ago. I´m not talking about personal preferences since older gear more or less colours the sound while newer gear is in general more transparent, meaning not colouring.
Take amplifiers: the sound you today have with a new amp would have cost three to four times as much only 20 years ago. Yet the recent ones don´t weigh that much, don´t draw that much power and won´t react so severely to different loudspeakers.
Even mp3 & Co. have reached a quality no one would have expected a few years ago. I wrote an article about: http://marlene-d.blogspot.de/2013/11/mp3-and-other-hires-formats.html
Those lossy codecs are HiRes capable. They really are and even mp3 sounds now sounds so well that it´s hard to believe (if it´s handled correctly of course).
I don´t miss a big system. I once had surround, Dolby Digital, DTS, the whole shebang. Today only the surround amp has survived, a Sony now 14 years old, now driving one pair of loudspeakers. Very warm sound, surely not balanced. Should it break one day it´ll be replaced by one of those small, efficient amps with lots of digital inputs. Why would I need more? I´ve heard those new amps: lovely sound quality. More power than I´d ever need.
For everything else, there´s the new, portable FiiO X3. Up to 24/192, plays every format one can think of and costs just $ 200. Imagine: 15 years ago you paid $ 400 for an MZ-R 50, a MiniDisc recorder, sounding very well for the time it was released.
Guess what: it doesn´t stand one tiny little chance against the FiiO. The FiiO just does everything better, with more ease, with more perfection.
Yet all is a pretty ironic: the amount of increasing gear quality has been matched by worsening quality of the media this gear is meant to play. The music we can nowaday buy sounds like - sorry - shit. Doesn´t matter if it´s mainstream or scores, they are too loud, feature a horrible frequency response... and all in order to sell more.
It´s sad: gear quality has never been this good as today, yet we use it to play music that has an audio quality of the first wax cylinders by Edison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that the long post above I wrote to ado was duplicated right here (fourteen minutes after I posted it and 9 minutes after bue15 posted his comment!), although I only posted it once, though I did go back again and again to edit it. I've always blamed members for posting the same thing more than once, but am now embarrassed that I chided them for something that is probably a flaw in the system here. (Originally wrote that it was probably endemic to the system, but that may be a stretch.)
ado:
I wrote the above in response to a duplicated post and NOT in response to what you originally wrote me. And THIS, not that, was what I wrote you: "But for all those, like you, disparaging the sound quality of the MP3 player with its compression, I see many of them talking about buying $150 speakers. I don't think I've bought a $150 speaker in over 30 years. Did you ever get into DVD-Audio or dts or SACD discs, which are farrrrrrrrrrrrr more dynamic than mere CD? As I wrote above, I recently bought a new center speaker for my system at just under $600, which, of the 8 speakers in the 7.1 system, makes it one of the cheapest. I realize that some may spend as much for one of their speakers as I spent on all of mine, just as I may spend as much on one of mine as some spend on all of theirs, so it's all in the eye of the beholder, or, in this case, the ear of the beholder. When I'm on the go, taking long walks or trying to drown out people on their cellphones, I have no problem with MP3 compression, and sometimes even plug my iPod into my main receiver if I'm not going to do any critical listening. But other times I may use my secondary (Samsung) Blu-ray player, which, unlike my much newer primary, still plays SACD discs, many in surround. It's easy to knock Steve Jobs and the iPod, but don't blame him for the demise of record stores or CD, which was inevitable. And, believe me, I miss the hell out of going to Tower Records to roam those aisles with their musical treasures and speak to their always knowledgeable staff! At least here in Southern California we still have Amoeba Music on Sunset Boulevard, although I buy almost all of my movies and most of my music online. Technology marches on, which, I'll agree, is not always a good thing."
To that you wrote this while referencing how one of my recent postings had been duplicated here:
no problem Ron. Thank you for your remarks. Yes, I have an SACD, and I love my CD's too.
Forgive me, ado, but it just doesn't seem that that would be a response to what I had written about MP3 and Steve Jobs and the demise of record stores. I'm not asking you to go back and write such a response, but the combination of your referencing my comment about the system here duplicating one of my postings about 14 minutes AFTER I posted it and your comment about loving your CDs just don't seem to go together. I feel like I'm missing something.,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: This is (usually) me.
Is anyone else here that guy too?
Octoberman! Yes indeed, too much of the time that is me! I wrote that a few days ago I spent nearly $600 for a new Klipsch center speaker to go along with my 6 Klipsch towers and Polk subwoofer. And just this morning I bought an Oppo BDP-103 Universal Disc Player with SACD/DVD-Audio/3D and, according to Amazon, some of the following:
Universal Blu-ray disc player with Blu-ray, DVD, SACD, DVD-Audio, CD, VCD, HDCD, AVCHD, MP4, AVI, and MKV support
Dual HDMI Inputs and Outputs, MHL-Compatibility, 3 USB Inputs, DLNA (DMP & DMR), SMB/CIFS, Wireless N, RS232 & IR
Dual-core processor provides quick startup and fast loading times; Updated Qdeo Video Processor
4k Up-conversion, 2D-to-3D Conversion, True 24p Video, Vertical Stretch Mode, Advanced Picture Controls
Netflix, Vudu, Pandora, YouTube, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, 7.1-Channel Analog, Coaxial/Optical
My secondary Blu-ray player from Samsung suddenly stopped decoding some of the surround channels when I played multi-channel SACDs, and it was driving me crazy!
So YES, that picture, unfortunately, could be me! But make that front speaker 2 1/2 times as tall and add another six of 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 2, 2013 - 11:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Marlene
(Member)
|
But I was amused to read this in your contribution, Marlene, albeit I do recall you have eschewed the need for a separate DAC in previous postings:
... Should it [Sony Surround Amp] break one day it´ll be replaced by one of those small, efficient amps with lots of digital inputs. Why would I need more? ...
It´s just that it makes so much sense to include a high quality DAC into an amp as the digital transfer from source to amp is the straightest way of transferring data. Furthermore, a DAC that is connected with simple RCA interconnects adds its own character to the sound, then there are the interconnects themselves which always need to be clean (and add a very slight character of their own). Better would be of course if the source would be embedded into the amp itself which brings me to your next quote and this device:
when I compare it with the vital statistics of the recently recently flagship integrated amp by Naim ... the SuperNait 2 - http://www.naimaudio.com/hifi-products/pdt-type/supernait-2-0 -
*** No digital inputs ***
Now I understand that the company is seeking to promote sales of its separate DAC but do wonder whether it would invest so much time and money in a product which fails to make the grade from the word Go. The earlier model has digital inputs so why remove such a basic facility, surely not a cost-saving exercise on such a piece of kit?
http://store.sony.com/500gb-hi-res-music-player-system-zid27-HAPS1//cat-27-catid-All-Res-Audio?vva_ColorCode=000000&_t=pfm%3Dcategory
This little and comparatively weak Sony amp contains a HDD. You can still connect an external HDD, ethernet audio, WiFi, two digital sources (optical/RCA) and two analogue sources. All in one package. Lovely.
Or this one (http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-390DD-Direct-Digital-Powered-DAC-Amplifier) where HDMI can be added... well, it lacks its own source.
Lacking its own source as well but tiny and supposedly very high quality sound: http://www.teac-audio.eu/en/products/ai-501da-90193.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regie: Re My husband has said, "you cannot listen to music that loud when we move". Grrr
Your husband is right! When I bought this great Klipsch center speaker last week for my surround, I came close to replacing my subwoofer too, but luckily I read the reviews from people who owned it, and the consensus was that that subwoofer, as wonderful as it was, was also a lease-breaker! So I decided to keep the one I already have.
You mentioned your frustrations with recording technology. I wish you could hear some of the CDs I have from Telarc, mostly classical, as well as some of the SACDs (a thrilling format with noticeably greater dynamic range than CD and capable, if mastered that way, with impressive surround -- I have some that I used to use to impress friends). I look back at simple stereo with good speakers and an equalizer as practically the Dark Ages! But one can go broke trying to keep up with the technology, and then 5 minutes after you buy something they release another that's even better -- much like the movies and music I wrote about in my PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE stream! Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 2, 2013 - 4:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Marlene
(Member)
|
Hi Marlene,
I don't doubt there are a number of excellent pieces of kit around though must say that the aesthetics of the Naim range win hands-down compared with NAD, Sony, Teac ... IMHO.
I think you'll find that the Naim range do not use RCA cables for connecting their own DAC ... but their amps include RCA connections just in case the consumer has another model.
Yeah, of course Naim looks better - they´re much more expensive 
You´re right, the typical-for-Naim connectors are an odd choice: DIN connectors. DIN stands for Deutsche Industrie Norm... it´s an ancient HiFi standard for Germany only. But apparently those cables have a few advantages...
As I said, I'm not technically minded and my logic is of a very basic level. I just wonder whether the logic of your argument drives us towards an all-in-one (no connections!) set-up. If I don't buy a DAC I may replace my integrated amp with separate Pre- and Power- amps ... but that is an expensive step. All I know is that this hi-fi amp is far superior to the Pioneer AV amp which preceded it.
Good question. I´m not a friend of all-in-one solutions, I just like to have as many options as possible... or things to play around. Integrated HDD, network, digital and analogue inputs enable every situation to be handled with ease, without the need to buy something new. Though I cannot recommend seperate pre- and poweramps. Too prone to sonic flaws and problems. An integrated amp usually is the more clever alternative.
I dread the day when we down-size (as Regie indicates) ... I really do not know what I shall do then.
You will enjoy similar or superior sound quality coming from smaller devices. If there´s one thing the last 20 years have shown that device sizes have going down while audio quality was going up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 2, 2013 - 4:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Marlene
(Member)
|
You mentioned your frustrations with recording technology. I wish you could hear some of the CDs I have from Telarc, mostly classical, as well as some of the SACDs (a thrilling format with noticeably greater dynamic range than CD and capable, if mastered that way, with impressive surround -- I have some that I used to use to impress friends). I look back at simple stereo with good speakers and an equalizer as practically the Dark Ages! But one can go broke trying to keep up with the technology, and then 5 minutes after you buy something they release another that's even better -- much like the movies and music I wrote about in my PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE stream! Cheers!
But you don´t need to buy all those new technologies. BluRay audio for example does only have a tiny - if at all - advantage over, say, SACD. Basically, SACD is - when translated to PCM domain - 20/88.2. 24/192 looks much better on paper but my own experience has shown me that 24/96 is more than enough and that even more doesn´t add anything anymore.
The only thing all those companies are doing is trying to sell. Who needs an ancient album from the Rolling Stones in any new format for the umpteenth time? That goes for media only of course, hardware has been improved a lot over the years. 20 years ago you had to pay, I don´t know, $10,000 for a quality you can nowadays get for $ 2,500.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
