I have a Solti recording of Beethoven 9 in all three formats. Last Sunday, I determined the LP provided the ultimate in listening quality. The timpani is deeper, the brass is clearer, and the overall richness of the sound is simply better. However, I didn't want to be one of those people who says that to be cool, so when Carra returned, I attempted not to jade her. I played all three formats. She said the LP dusted it for the same reasons noted above.
I have done minimal reading on the whole digital v. analog debate and understand the basic concepts at issue (i.e. capturing a picture of a wave at various speeds v. the realistic audio grasping of analog). It was just interesting to confirm what I had long suspected. I am not sure the differences would be so remarkable if it weren't for the sub-woofer driving home the bass lines and the clarity with which my speakers play brass. Also, I am not using the best format possible for CD sound (a high def transmission through a PS3). I guess that is the next phase of the journey.
Regarding the MP3, it actually does a nice job of muzzling superfluous sound (i.e. static). Unfortunately, it also muffles everything else. So if you have a recording laced with extra sounds that actually detract from the main music, I would encourage this format.
What a topic! First, I can't do a side-by-side since I am currently short 1 turn table. But doesn't mean I have nothing to say:)
ReplyDelete1) Certainly a big vinyl revival going on right now and a debate, which never died, seems to be coming up everywhere I turn
2) DACs (Digital to Analog Converters) matter...a lot. The little device which converts that digital signal back into analog comes in all flavors and qualities. When you are in town, we can play a bit. There is a dramatic difference between the DAC in our Sonos and independent DACs when playing the same CD quality feed.
3) I find myself moving further away from MP3. I rip everything is FLAC (lossless). There is a big difference for me and it is worth the extra HD space
4) For fun reading - track down some of the discussion on HD tracks which are 2-3x size of CDs. Great arguments between people that claim science proves you can't hear the improvement and those who claim they can. My vote goes to those who claim they can hear the difference - science continues to underestimate the human body.
so if i am in the market to improve my quality, i need something like this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acousticplan.de/html/drivemaster_english.html
ReplyDeleteOK that is crazy looking
DeleteI've haven't been shopping for CD players but have heard great things about the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD Blu-ray Player and the Marantz CD5004. Retail for the Cambridge is quite high - but you can pick it up for around ~450 online; Marantz runs about 350. Alternatively you can shop Audiogon for good deals on used gear. I've had good luck there - pretty much everything I've picked up recently has been through that site.
ReplyDeleteso i am pleased with my turn table, speakers, and sub. i am displeased with my amp (actually just a basic onkyo receiver) and cd player. i am willing to spend some bucks to upgrade. i understand the sound quality i would like; i do not understand the process of getting there entirely. if you were in my shoes, what would your solution be? i know you've recently gone with a tube amp. what flavor? integrated or not? i'm not rich, but i have a little green set aside for perfecting this issue.
ReplyDeleteSlippery slope. The most important thing you can do (and won't do) is don't listen to anything more expensive than your budget - else it will be blown.
ReplyDeleteI do like tube - but there are a few drawbacks
+ Take time to warm up to sounds great (think 20 minutes)
+ Much higher cost in $/watt. And I know how you like to listen
+ Ongoing maintenance costs of tubes. Not trivial if you get much power (about 0.2 cents per watt per listening hour or 20 cents an hour for a 100 watt amp)
That said some tube amps can be quite soft and too bloomy for me just as some solid state can feel to cold and dry.
You can consider separating the amp from the pre in the $2-5k range. In general, in this range you are going to get more bang for the buck with an integrated. A reason to split here is if you expect your system to continue to evolve (e.g., get separates now - knowing you will replace 1 of the 2 components in the next couple years to take the system up).
I like big amps. The signal-to-noise ratios of amps have improved quite a bit over couple decades, which has helped large amps. So with big amps you can get amazing control without the noise downside. Big amps aren't about playing loud - for me it is about sounding effortless. Think of me picking up 45 lb weight lifting plate. Now envision The Rock doing the same exercise. We both can lift it - but watching me would be painful. Despite this, we have just 115w(see note above on why you might buy separates for an evolving system)
I'll give some thoughts to specific options.
Another vote for vinyl....
ReplyDelete"20+ years ago I had a nice set of separates, a Sota Sapphire turntable and a whole bunch of albums. Then I went digital, the albums and turntable went away (damn) , and I amassed CDs. About 2 years ago I built a music server using a Mac mini and various software programs and started loading CDs into it and downloading high res lossless files. An improvement over my CD player (even my SACD) but I still wasn't happy. I just bought a Clearaudio Performance DC and a phono pre and some albums, including a few I owned on CD. This is a further improvement and not a subtle one (at least to me). Sure, its not as convenient, but wow! So the question is what took me so long (and what was I thinking in the first place)? The circle is closed."
http://www.audioaficionado.org/turntables-tonearms/19725-why-did-i-wait-so-long-circle-life.html
__________________