Not wasting my time on new Digital


Well guys, I have disappointing news:

Getting all hyped being a tech guy, tried out a new $9000 top flying Integrated CD player, with the apparently best design and parts including Anagram algorithms and ……..

I don’t know boys, this is my second disappointing experience with new digital gear.
I am not going to mention any manufactures that I have been disappointed with.
I have a very nice system to my ears to name a few products including Sonus Faber (Electa Amator mk1 to be exact) Apogee’s, Audio research and more…….

Decided to try some new sources of course and I was told all sort of things and parts and man oh man, the reviews and well to my ears other than my original Oracle turntable and my newer VPI table, my older DAC’s sound much more musical. WHY? WHY? WHY?

New technology, new ideas, new designs, new engineering and we see to be going behind rather that forward. I still like my original Theta Gen V and even my Bel Canto DAC for a fraction of the cost, even my Micromega DAC hands down.

Anyway are there any other people experience the same thing, by the way I have tried some very serious stuff and out of the pricy gear…meridian and Spectral (Spectral SDR-2000 with no upgrades and still sounds amazing) stays on top of my listing.

Appreciate any input.

Cheers - rapogee
rapogee
Quadraphonic on 4 track tape like all types of recordings had good, and bad. I've heard some very good Quadraphonic recordings. The limitation of Quad was more at the end user/retail interface and the LP. Which has proven to be a weak surround source.

There is a reason companies invested heavily in Quad sound, there are intrinsic advantages to surround sound and how human respond to it. That research was done in the the 40's 50's.

So I would imagine that the very best Quad recordings would be satisfactory versus todays digital surround like PLII and Trifield. Computing power is beyond the imagination of people just 20 years ago let alone 40.

And this is the key to making surround a viable argument. The technology for it has matured and is available inexpensively. Digital can be edited and manipulated with very little tainting to the original information.

The key to digital is to jump in and embrace all its benefits. EQ, compression, room correction etc. Unlike analog, digital can be manipulated very effectively, because its ones and zeroes. A weakness that becomes a strength.

Now please note that digital can still be improved but the potential is being utilized and improvements are being made as computing power increases and that power becomes cheaper.
The recording happens in a space, that space unless anechoic will reflect and reinforce sound creating a tone, that tone is captured onto the recording. This is inescapable, that somewhat unimportant information is not as damaging to analog sound because it simply doesn't have the S/N ratio and the linear performance, so that medium masks effectively this information. The CD does not mask this information and two channel simply crushes that noise, ambiance and room tone back on top of the soundstage. Think of live recordings where all the people are clapping in a compressed area in front of you. That is not correct, that is simply the standard. Surround expands and sorts this off subject sound and places it properly in a soundfield.
Very thought provoking.
This is pure rubbish, analog, both tape and LP, has greater dynamic range than redbook CD. Sounds can be heard between ten and twenty db beneath the noise floor on analog. Digital media simply throw away all information below the least significant bit, just as redbook CD throws away all information above 20K. Or distortion can be ADDED, yes intentionally ADDED, to help recapture some of the low level information in digital media. In fact, the criticisms of digital routinely center around the inability of the medium to capture the integrity of the original space. Try this analysis before accepting the shibboleths of the audio manufacturers at face value,
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPvsCDformats2.php
BTW, I am not making any claims about one medium sounding "better" than the other. And don't get me started on rise time.
Viridian...I have a test CD (put out by Dennon) that has a track with a tone having amplitude of one LSB. It is completely inaudible, although my spectrum analyser, looking at the electrical signal, picks it up so I know it is there. I don't much care what might lie ten to twenty dB lower.

Oh, and that is a 16 bit CD. DVDs are 256 times better.
Viridian...Please explain why I should care about sounds that are ten to twenty dB softer than what is audible.

Unlike many sonic characteristics that are near to the heart of audiophiles, dynamic range is very easy to measure. Have you ever actually done this?