|
TheMadMilkman posted:Very nice! Do you stick with vintage speakers as well, and if so, what are you running? I'd like to stick with vintage speakers when possible, but the truth is that I think most modern speakers do just as well if not better then the classics, and require none of the work. The only major advantage vintage speakers offer is the chance to get a killer deal. Right now I'm running a set of B&W DM110s, which will be...completely inappropriate for the Concept. Unfortunately my music budget has run out for the next month or so, but I will being to start looking for a set that can handle the Concept.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2009 05:12 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:10 |
|
CEO of Ayre Electronics and his 10,000 dollar Blu-Ray player. (It's based off the $500 Oppo)Charles Hansen posted:Well, first of all you have to remember that we don't have to pay $500 for the unit. We buy in quantity, so Oppo gives us the spectacular discounted price of (make sure you are sitting down, please!) $400. Source: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755 I have absolutely no idea how an "improved power supply" and other analog mods will improve 1080p that is being bit-streamed to a display, or improve upscaled DVDs. Do his improvements make bits flip or something? proudfoot fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 4, 2009 |
# ? Nov 4, 2009 18:36 |
|
proudfoot posted:I have absolutely no idea how an "improved power supply" and other analog mods will improve 1080p that is being bit-streamed to a display, or improve upscaled DVDs. Do his improvements make bits flip or something? quote:Then to make it an Ayre, we dismantle it completely and recycle everything except the main PCB (with the video decoder, ABT scaler chip, and HDMI transmitter), the transport mechanism, the VFD display, and the remote control handset. edit: all the people in the thread going "wow, thanks for your detailed response, now I get it" are just icing on the cake. qirex fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 4, 2009 |
# ? Nov 4, 2009 18:45 |
|
qirex posted:this I love this part: Some guy posted:Any chance of posting before and after images? posted:This is not the kind of thing that shows up in before and after still shots that are JPEG compressed to post on the internet.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2009 19:29 |
|
Still, unlike the other two cloners, Ayre seems to do something. He even admits he buys Oppo's and modifies them.quote:The official Lexicon BD30 post: Source: http://www.smr-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=323 Lexicon is the company which Hansen mentions as "only replaces the chassis". They charge $3.5k for the BD-30. And by "some parts are similar to the OPPO due to the fact we purchase subassemblies from the same contract manufacturer." the Lexicon rep means every single part with the exception of the chassis. They look suspiciously similar: Oppo: Lexicon: Oppo: Lexicon: The other cloner is Theta Digital, who have changed the power supply, and charge merely 3k. A steal compared to the other two players. I'm kind of sad to see AVSForum fall to prey like the Ayre. I generally considered it a more sane and scientific resource than the various audio boards. They do call out Theta and Lexicon for cloning though. proudfoot fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 4, 2009 |
# ? Nov 4, 2009 19:29 |
|
Rebadging happens quite a bit in audio. Here is the Red Rose M1 Multichannel Audio Video Amplifier For the first time, a high end purist multichannel amplifier from Mark Levinson and his associates. As you would expect from Mark Levinson and his associates, the M1 is a no-compromise amplifier for recordings of music, and can be compared with the most expensive separate stereo components for sonic quality. The M1 costs $5,000. OR You can buy the exact same item from the source Dussun (KorSun) D9 Multi-Channel Amplifier $867
|
# ? Nov 4, 2009 21:53 |
|
Yes but when you're dealing with analog, you can claim any small thing makes a change, and be correct - though that change might be nothing noticeable or useful. When you start saying that modifying the power supply improves a digital transport, you venture into the territory of complete bullshit.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2009 02:58 |
|
Doc Spratley posted:
Do you think Mark Levinson might have paid for design/development of the amp and then the chinese manufacturer gets a deal where they're allowed to sell it on the side under a different name (especially if it's not supposed to be shipped to the USA/Europe)? I definitely see stuff like that all the time. Of course which one came first doesn't chance the fact that it makes the markup really obvious and embarrassing.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2009 03:46 |
|
Doc Spratley posted:You can buy the exact same item from the source Did anybody ever bother to purchase one of each and tear them apart? Levinson stated that the casing was the same but that the circuitry was different. I can't find a single link of anybody actually attempting to figure out if this really was the case. Not to say that their gear isn't overpriced. Mark Levinson isn't known for being cheap.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2009 05:21 |
|
TheMadMilkman posted:Did anybody ever bother to purchase one of each and tear them apart? Levinson stated that the casing was the same but that the circuitry was different. I can't find a single link of anybody actually attempting to figure out if this really was the case. Are you willing to take a 5k device apart and void its warranty? I don't think Mark Levinson sells more than a hundred of those, at any rate.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2009 06:26 |
|
TheMadMilkman posted:Plenty, but how often will the theatre be showing an obscure late-70's German art film? Buddy of mine worked at a theatre and when it would close he'd throw stuff on the digital projector, he has since started buying actual film reels with buddies, they all go in on really cool movies for the sake of showing us past close.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2009 17:16 |
|
proudfoot posted:Are you willing to take a 5k device apart and void its warranty? I don't think Mark Levinson sells more than a hundred of those, at any rate. The changes ML claims to have made should be visible by simply removing the cover, and the integrated amp that first caused the drama was being sold for $2000. Hell, you wouldn't even have to remove the cover yourself, since early on the screws holding the top in place had a tendency to fall out during shipment. I could see this one going either way, to be honest. It just bothers me that nobody took the time to figure out the truth, one way or the other. Not an Anthem posted:Buddy of mine worked at a theatre and when it would close he'd throw stuff on the digital projector, he has since started buying actual film reels with buddies, they all go in on really cool movies for the sake of showing us past close. Your friend is awesome.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2009 07:21 |
|
Ugh, this thread:quote:A friend an I were having a discussion about our beloved stereos, when it occurred to us how cheap hard drive space is now. Up until now, I've been ripping all my CD's into the MP4 format at 320kps just for casual listening and iPod use. When I want to have an listening session, however, I dig out the actual CD and drop it into my nice Marantz SACD/CD player. quote:Thanks for your reply! quote:I'm a little confused about that. Maybe it's a PC vs Mac thing, but when I pop a CD into my Mac, I can see the actual audio files. They always show up as large AIFF files. For instance, I just checked a CD on my friends mac, and track one is a 84.4MB AIFF audio file- that's definitely not a reference file. quote:I am using Windows Media Player on my IBM ThinkPad. I purchased an HRT MusicStreamer USB DAC and a 500 GB Seagate external hard drive. I rip my CDs in the WAV Lossless mode. This combination sounds as good as any cdp I have ever heard.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2009 08:40 |
|
I think the problem is that audiophiles expect digital audio to be as fiddly as analog and the people who sell them gear are happy to promote that idea. I know I've seen serious discussion about what brand of CD-R sounds better.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2009 17:33 |
|
qirex posted:I think the problem is that audiophiles expect digital audio to be as fiddly as analog and the people who sell them gear are happy to promote that idea. I know I've seen serious discussion about what brand of CD-R sounds better. Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen. It's just funny when said salesmen try to do the same to digital video.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2009 11:20 |
|
proudfoot posted:Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen. Haven't we been over this a million times? Audio quality is quite easily meassured, but audiophiles are idiots. It's the uneducated pseudoscience megathread all over again.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2009 14:29 |
|
quote:I am using Windows Media Player on my IBM ThinkPad. I purchased an HRT MusicStreamer USB DAC and a 500 GB Seagate external hard drive. I rip my CDs in the WAV Lossless mode. This combination sounds as good as any cdp I have ever heard. What is wrong with this?
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 13:41 |
|
willd58 posted:What is wrong with this? He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 16:24 |
|
HKR posted:He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav. The bits are the same, sure, but the difference in soundstage is unmistakable!
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 16:27 |
|
HKR posted:He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav. Actually he switched from ripping to 320 kbps MP4 to just ripping the straight wav file representation of the CD. It probably sounds slightly better, all lossless stuff does sound slightly better than lossy.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 20:27 |
|
madprocess posted:Actually he switched from ripping to 320 kbps MP4 to just ripping the straight wav file representation of the CD. It probably sounds slightly better, all lossless stuff does sound slightly better than lossy. Yes but ripping and using straight wav is really stupid.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 22:30 |
|
HKR posted:Yes but ripping and using straight wav is really stupid. Eh, hard drive space is cheap and anything will play a WAV. It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2009 23:35 |
|
madprocess posted:Eh, hard drive space is cheap and anything will play a WAV. It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller. Unless something has changed, wavs have no real tagging system and would make managing a music collection a nightmare.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2009 00:06 |
|
HKR posted:Unless something has changed, wavs have no real tagging system and would make managing a music collection a nightmare. Windows Vista and 7 allow you to apply arbitrary metadata to any file, and you can always go the folder/filename route. All I'm saying is I don't have a problem with the guy just taking everything as straight WAV.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2009 04:47 |
|
madprocess posted:It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller. FLAC and ALAC are about 50% smaller, on average. That's significant.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2009 20:21 |
|
timb posted:FLAC and ALAC are about 50% smaller, on average. That's significant.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2009 20:30 |
|
qirex posted:More like 30-40% smaller, it depends on the music. I'm only doing it for the tagging really, it's not like a 200 gig library is that much more manageable than a 300 gig one. I think my ALAC stuff averages around 400 megs per album. Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If you can already handle FLAC for all you albums, you probably have enough disk space available to just do straight WAV rips.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2009 21:42 |
|
Being the son of an A/V engineer, I've heard some truly shocking stories of acoustical snake-oil peddlers. My dad knows his poo poo. He spent his teenage years running pirate radio stations. In his early 20s he was a recording engineer at Sunset Sound in Hollywood. He worked on the design and construction of Studio 3 there and built the original console for studio 2. He engineered with the Doobie Brothers, Stevie Nicks, and many more. He was mentored by Les Paul. Doing live sound he once knocked Tom Waits unconscious for pouring a fifth of scotch into the mixing console. For several years he ran the pro audio division of Fender. Now he designs concert halls, legislative chambers, recording studios and churches both from an A/V equipment standpoint and acoustical architecture. So when an equipment dealer tried to convince him to buy "sound particle traps" for a recording studio floor and tried to feed him a load of BS about the new physics of sound wave/particle duality, my dad worked to get the rear end in a top hat's business shut down. It was hilarious.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2009 01:00 |
|
^^^Your dad sounds pretty badass.MrBling posted:Does anyone happen to know what the general audiophile consensus is regarding the laser turntable? Holy poo poo. I swear I had this idea back when I was in high school or something. I used to think it would be really cool if you could like take some super ultra dpi scan of a record's surface and reproduce the sound from that. Could'a been rich
|
# ? Nov 12, 2009 09:32 |
|
sephiroth669 posted:Holy poo poo. I swear I had this idea back when I was in high school or something. I used to think it would be really cool if you could like take some super ultra dpi scan of a record's surface and reproduce the sound from that. Could'a been rich Works okay for old mono recordings.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2009 12:44 |
|
timb posted:Works okay for old mono recordings. This is loving awesome, and this: quote:Doing live sound he once knocked Tom Waits unconscious for pouring a fifth of scotch into the mixing console.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2009 14:03 |
|
McPhearson posted:A buddy of mine is doing some research at his university comparing the emotional response to music containing infrabass and music without it. He actually got the uni to give him tons of money to do this; he's got some major engineering and physics professors to design the room and system, has someone from the psychology department who specializes in spatial sound, and has full access to the uni's experimental acoustic research studio for all testing. proudfoot posted:Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2009 22:20 |
|
timb posted:Works okay for old mono recordings. That's loving great. Maybe I'll get all vinyl albums and scan them up...
|
# ? Nov 16, 2009 03:21 |
|
"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital" Let's break this down: -computers- suck at -digital- http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/compass-thread-new-428729/index49.html#post6164407 I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster.
|
# ? Nov 18, 2009 22:55 |
|
eddiewalker posted:I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster. I propose that popularity in the audiophile world is inversely proportional to the amount of logical thinking you possess or display.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 03:02 |
|
eddiewalker posted:"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital" The exact same thing happened to me in the Zero DAC thread over there last year. Apparently there's a significant difference between a $20 TOSLINK cable and a $150 one. God forbid you bring up DBT!
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 03:33 |
|
>.< How can they argue it sounds different! The optical and coax would use the SAME DAC, so if it sounds different, then there is something wrong with the bits travelling down the wire! and if the bits are wrong, it wont be "a little bit more bass and treble" it will be ASSHHIIHIHIHMMHMMMAAAAAASSSSSSSHHHHHH OMG TURN IT OFF WHITE NOISE. This whole idea that a cable is selectively delaying bits and messing the timing up too is nonsense. Yes, A USB device would buffer a few samples and reclock them, but a digital audio stream is digital audio. The issue of clocks comes in when you have MULTIPLE sources talking to one device, hence why a world clock can solve those problems. AGGHHH! At least its not my money!
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 04:15 |
|
eddiewalker posted:"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital" even better a few lines down dumbass posted:...through the optical input, the Compass has very balanced treble and boosted bass. Through the coax input, the Compass' mids take a step forward and the sound becomes thicker and smoother. I listened to the same music from my computer ripped via EAC and played through WASAPI output into the Compass to double check the optical input - yeah, the Compass doesn't sound the same between its digital inputs. Thicker and smoother - oh yeah!
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 04:28 |
|
jitterjitterjitterjitter. All I can gather is that they understand SPDIF working like cars down a freeway: in different amounts and at different speeds, and thus retaining timing is a black art. The idea that its like a freight train moving identically sized cars down a track, all at the same speed doesn't seem that difficult to understand.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 06:09 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:10 |
|
I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat here, but I'm pretty sure the whole "digital = no chance for imperfection" idea is patently wrong. A DAC is like any other circuit in that it has no inherent understand of bits. Voltages representing bits go in and an analog signal voltage comes out. Imperfections in those voltages going in will change the output.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2009 19:02 |