or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want? - Page 4

post #46 of 2378
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
there's a big diff between bi-wiring and bi-amping. Bi-amping can be benefitial while bi-wiring is pointless.

Uh yeah, I realize that but some notable audiophiles think bi-wiring is valuable.
post #47 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Uh yeah, I realize that but some notable audiophiles think bi-wiring is valuable.
Some notable audiophile think putting hockey pucks on amplifiers improve the sound.
post #48 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
Some notable audiophile think putting hockey pucks on amplifiers improve the sound.

It's not a puck, it's a rubberized sound diffuser.
post #49 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman View Post
It's not a puck, it's a rubberized sound diffuser of the awesome.

Fixed.
post #50 of 2378
My current setup is of rather humble origins...

-Dell laptop linked to receiver
-Sony receiver STR-D450Z
-Sony CD player 5 disk
-Monster XP speaker cable
-Bose 601 series II w/ free space array
post #51 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Uh yeah, I realize that but some notable audiophiles think bi-wiring is valuable.
I find I can hear a difference when bi-wiring my JBL sva series (dualbass n horn), Old H/K avr85, Krell KAV-300CD (slightly out of my league, but got a good deal), linn speakerwires, taralabs interconects. For my home cinama I dump the biwhiring and supply with control65's for the rear and a mathcing SVA center. DVD & DVD-A go through a Panasonic DMR E500H (400gb w LAN) or a Panasonic RA82. Also have a 5disk HK cd FL8300. Used to know people handling HK+JBL for our market I still realy like the SVA's, think its the clarety of the horn coupled with the punch of the dual bass. Thinking of changing the Amp/reciver, but having a hard time seteling on AUDIO vs CINEMA ... My current faves are a Thule SphereAV 120s, it works realy well with my speakers (stereo & cinema) Or a simple pre amp with a McIntosh tubeamp like the MC275 ... So, sugestions? Thanks Speed
post #52 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
I agree with what GQgeek writes for your other questions. For this one, DVD-A and SACD are really 6 full-range channels, though most releases use them as 5.1.

If you want to get 7 channels, DPLIIx and Logic 7 can expand 5.1 into 7.1.

--Andre

They can support that, but as I said it's really down to the disc. I have some RCA classical recordings that only use the front 3 channels as they were recorded with 3 microphones back in the day and they wanted to preserve that. The majority probably use all channels though.
post #53 of 2378
I am puzzled, what is so special about Rega 1-2 Turn Tables?
They are manual.
Their wow/flutter=0.15% is over 10 times worse than some cheap tables frm technics.

Is it the arm that so good? Because I see nothing else there (piece of fiberboard and one speed motor).

Plus they have no speed adjustment or speed tuner (the one with light on the side of the table).

I am thinking of replacing my TT and every review indicates that Rega is the way to go.
Can anyone shed light on this?
post #54 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
They can support that, but as I said it's really down to the disc. I have some RCA classical recordings that only use the front 3 channels as they were recorded with 3 microphones back in the day and they wanted to preserve that. The majority probably use all channels though.

Right. It seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) that your reply implied that SACD and DVD-A could support 7.1, which they can't.

--Andre
post #55 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Their wow/flutter=0.15% is over 10 times worse than some cheap tables frm technics.

Sorry for not answering your question, but wow/flutter for turntables is exactly the same distortion as jitter for digital. So someone reconcile these things for me:

1. CD has jitter that is at least 8 orders of magnitude (1 with 8 0s) lower than LP.
2. LP is claimed to sound better than CD.
3. Jitter is the (current) bugbear of digital.

So does jitter really matter for sound quality? Going with the simplest explanation, it seems to me that there are other factors at work for some people's preference for LP.

--Andre
post #56 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
Sorry for not answering your question, but wow/flutter for turntables is exactly the same distortion as jitter for digital. So someone reconcile these things for me:

1. CD has jitter that is at least 8 orders of magnitude (1 with 8 0s) lower than LP.
2. LP is claimed to sound better than CD.
3. Jitter is the (current) bugbear of digital.

So does jitter really matter for sound quality? Going with the simplest explanation, it seems to me that there are other factors at work for some people's preference for LP.

--Andre

Hello, I am a new member, and a professional musician. I do have experience with LP's. Not only do I collect them, but I have made some audiophile grade LP's in the last few years.

It is very difficult to compare the sound of LP's and CD's, because they really are two separate systems, two different ways of storing sound.

A phonograph record (modulated groove) is like a hand print--think of pressing your hand in some wet cement. Then make a casting of your hand. The resulting casting will have the characteristics of your hand, but it will depend greatly on how good quality the casting is.

So, when a record is made, sound causes a needle to vibrate and cut a wavy groove. Modern records use a material called lacquer, Thomas Edison used tin foil originally. In fact, if you go to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn MI, you can record on one of Edison's machines from the 1880's. You yell into it, and it will play back something that sounds a little bit like your voice.

Record play back is still getting better and better. A lot depends on how well the record was made in the first place, how it was mastered. One of the greatest mastering engineers ever for Records is still active: Stan Ricker www.rickermaster.com. Stan worked on projects for the Beatles, Pink Floyd, ELO, Clapton, tons of Classical and jazz landmark recordings, etc. He taught me a lot about how the system works.

Basically the better the turntable, the most sounds you going to pick up, and the quality can appreciate DRAMATICALLY. Unfortunately, most people have not heard a very well made analog recording played on a $5000-$20000 turntable.

CD's store an analog sound in sections. It stores one event of sound, then another event of sound and on and on. The data on the disk is read by a laser, which tries to read as best as it can and then then sound is converted back to analog so we can hear it.

The CD is limited very much by how much data you want to put on it. For one thing CD's do not reproduce sounds above approximately 18000 CPS range. Some people say that humans can't hear that high, others claim it really affects the sound. LP's are not limited it that way. Apparently some LP's can store sounds up to 100,000 CPS!

The technology for CD's dates back to late 1970's early 1980's computer technology. Even at that time compromises were made with the sampling rate so that affordable machines could be made to play them back. Really, the resolution for CD's could have been much better, but the industry did not want to adopt higher quality systems. Only more recently have there been high resolution digital disc systems such as HDCD and DVD audio. These systems sound very nice and represent what the regular CD could/should have offered all along. The public has not embraced the high res. digital discs much, actually LP's do a much better business.

So on to the idea of "jitter."

Problems with speed consistency on a record will result in just what you might expect. A record that moves too slow will sound too low in pitch, and one that goes too fast will sound too high. This was a significant problem for about the first 60 years of the phonograph record. Early record players almost always had variable speed controls to compensate for speed and tracking fluctuations. There were other problems. The mechanical record players were prone to wild fluctuations in speed, and to top it off, most of the early records actually were recorded at different speeds as the needle got closer and closer to the center.

By the 60's turntable and records got much better. Modern high-end turntables can be incredibly really rock solid in terms of consistency. If the record is made right, the pitch and the timing will be quite good.

Regarding CD jitter, to quote wikipedia, "In the context of digital audio extraction from Compact Discs, seek jitter causes extracted audio samples to be doubled-up or skipped entirely if the Compact Disc drive re-seeks. "

Basically when the laser doesn't read data correctly on the CD's surface, a moment of recorded sound is not being picked up. So the CD player has to make up something to compensate for the missing or duplicated data. If it can't effectively make something up, the CD "skips"

Lower jitter for CD implies you are getting more of the correct original data.

quoting Andre Yew.
"LP is claimed to sound better than CD."

I've made recordings and heard them played back on CD and LP. LP wins hands down, at least to my ears.
post #57 of 2378
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I've made recordings and heard them played back on CD and LP. LP wins hands down, at least to my ears.

A thoughtful reply. I have album credits in recording or producing over 18 albums and the analog master tape or resulting LP sounds much better than the CD. CD sound is getting better but you can get there faster with a turntable.
post #58 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
I've made recordings and heard them played back on CD and LP. LP wins hands down, at least to my ears.

Better in what way? Most of what I've read is that LP's sound "warmer" or more compressed or something. Is that how you'd describe it?

The last turntable I heard was my mom's about twenty years ago, and I don't imagine it was a very good one .

Quote:
Lower jitter for CD implies you are getting more of the correct original data.
Methinks Andre was talking about clock jitter (small erroneous speed changes in the sample clock), which is in a sense like flutter as I understand it.

John
post #59 of 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
A thoughtful reply. I have album credits in recording or producing over 18 albums and the analog master tape or resulting LP sounds much better than the CD. CD sound is getting better but you can get there faster with a turntable.
Do you own Artisan FRANchise Records?
post #60 of 2378
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Better in what way? Most of what I've read is that LP's sound "warmer" or more compressed or something. Is that how you'd describe it?

Analog tape done well simply captures more of the ambience and tonality of what happens in the studio. It really is quite noticeable on acoustic recordings. There is similar digital like 24/192 PCM or DSD, the underlying format of Super Audio CD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want?