|
GWBBQ posted:Even at 320, I could probably tell you the difference between mp3 and lossless or mp3 and AAC almost every time. I've re-ripped CDs in AAC for my iPod and found that even on the earbuds that came with it (I'm pretty sure I got one of the better production runs,) music sounds a lot clearer and not muffled. I had a friend who claimed that there was no audible difference between 320 mp3 and lossless. His rationale was that some computer magazine had sent out CDs with music in different bit rates and had readers compare them, and based on the results they declared that there were no audible differences. So to spite him, I had him set up a blind test for me that I aced with ease. I'm apparently very sensitive to the information that the mp3 codec strips out. I also agree that AAC is a far superior codec and, at least with earbuds or computer speakers, doesn't bother me at all. proudfoot posted:This is basically what I meant, after around the 5k mark, you can't really do anything but room treatment. 5k per component, or 5k for the entire system?
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2009 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
900ftjesus posted:How dare he tell you what he can and can't hear the difference between. If that's what he had said, I wouldn't have cared. But since he claimed that no one could, I had to respond.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
Xaranx posted:Is that including cable elevators?  I hate to say this, but I really want a set of those. Not because they do anything, but because of how they look. It's so neat and tidy. Devian666 posted:Time to clarify this; it's $5k per cable. I wandered around CES with an electrical engineer/audiophile once. It was very entertaining. He would look at the opened components on display and show me the actual audio path through the component. Then he'd point to other parts of the design, like a large bank of capacitors, and explain how they were a waste and could have no effect on the sound. We even visited a few cable manufacturers. He'd just shake his head and walk back out. Gromit posted:I'm of the opinion that $5k per component is a ridiculous sum to spend, and the law of diminishing returns kills you way before this price point. I guess this is what I'm really asking. I'm sure that my tipping point for the law of diminishing returns is higher than most people here. The system I currently dream of owning (but will never be able to afford) would put me back about $35,000, and that's only for 2-channel digital. That's way beyond the tipping point, though, which I would peg at probably about $2000 per electronic component, and about $5000 for speakers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 09:16
|
|
|
Deathlove posted:That is a lot of money to spend to watch movies. On a regular flat screen, no less. $1 million and no front/rear projection? That's insane. I wonder how hot it gets in that room.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 17:09
|
|
|
bacon! posted:According to the site, My mistake for not reading the equipment list a little more carefully. At least he has good tastes, the G90 was easily the best CRT projector ever produced.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 21:45
|
|
|
Pibborando San posted:What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. If you want an accurate reproduction of an instrument, the response curve of the microphone used to record said instrument should be flat and the response curve of the speakers you are listening to should also be flat. Why would you try to have the speakers emulate the response curve of your ear? That's irrelevant. No, that's not what he's saying. The digital calibration shown was used to create a perfectly flat response at the listening position. Even a perfectly flat speaker response will not create a perfectly flat in-room response, thanks to boundary reinforcement, beaming, room modes, and other things. While digital calibration of bass frequencies to correct in-room response makes sense to some degree (and we could argue for days about how far it should be taken), doing so for the entire spectrum can create an incredibly harsh and unnatural sound. The graph is just to show that a perfectly flat in-room response won't sound flat or natural.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 06:47
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:It just seemed strange to read that interview where he seems to be saying that he'll spend whatever it takes to most accurately reproduce the experience of a theater, when top of the line theater projection and sound would be a maybe a 5th the price he's already paid if you had them spec'ed for 150-200 seat auditorium (it would be much cheaper for a smaller space). Hell, you could build a pimped out IMAX theater for less than he spent. If you're going for absolute top-of-the-line, it's easy to blow past the $1,00,000 mark on a dedicated home theater, especially if you factor in design and construction. The goal is not to reproduce the theater experience, it's to outperform it in every way imaginable. If you have the money, it's worth paying to have it done right, since simple errors can really spoil the final result. This guy definitely seems to miss the mark in a lot of regards, but I can respect the fun he's had getting to where he is. He literally has every product produced by one company over the last few years, and can easily swap pieces. I would have a ball toying with this, even though my choices in terms of which companies would definitely be different.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2009 06:52
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How many movie tickes can you get for a million dollars? Plenty, but how often will the theatre be showing an obscure late-70's German art film?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:This would be sort of difficult though, as no home projection system or TV comes close to the resolution of a 35mm or even a digital projector (let alone an IMAX projector) that you would find at a theater. A true cost-no-object home theater would use the exact same digital projection system you would see in the theater, with modifications made to make it suitable for home use. And the 2k standard used in the many (most?) theaters is only 2048 x 1080, which is only a negligible difference. This is set to change within the next year or two, as digital projection moves to 4k (some films are already being released and played at this resolution, but it's not particularly common). quote:So how much better does the million dollar ultimate audiophile system sound, assuming you spent the money on things that matter and not $5,000 HDMI cables or something? Compared to your local movie theater? The difference is night and day. Commercial theaters are full of design compromises that seriously affect sound quality, but are almost necessary in a commercial venture. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a commercial theater to have equivalent sound quality, but to do so in so large a space would be prohibitively expensive. What would be fun, and what I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to do, is to compare the sound of some of these top-end theaters to the mixing rooms where the soundtracks were created. That would yield a lot more insight into the value of the home theater than a comparison to your local cineplex.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
It's hard to blame them. The markup on cables is beyond ridiculous, and people will pay for it.Boiled Water posted:Be careful now, you're moving from audiophile madness to something which might be called science. The home theater guys tend to be much more grounded in reality, mostly because the focus is on video, and video has objective standards that you can match -- standards that were created to assure that the produced picture matches the original intent. You don't really have the same thing for audio, especially 2-channel. bull3964 posted:Really though, the big thing is these people will be confined to blu-ray as the source of their media and the track record for releases has been a bit spotty. You can play the numbers game all day long, but "poo poo in poo poo out" still applies. I find it amusing that people will spend $500k on a home projector to play back media that some studio guy slathered in DNR and edge enhancement so that it looks like Monday Night Football for the person with a $400 wal-mart special LCD. That's very true, but at least they're looking at the best-polished turd imaginable, right? This next year should be a really interesting one to watch in terms of price/performance, though. Runco's new LED-based DLP, for example, is apparently nothing short of amazing, albeit somewhat limited in terms of brightness and therefore screen size. Some very knowledgeable industry insiders have said it has the most film-like picture of any projector they've seen, regardless of price. It retails for only $15-18,000. qirex posted:I just wonder how much of that $1 mil is markup. $600k? $700? Whatever it is, it's not as high as the margin on clothing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are objective standards for audio - do a simple double blind test or hook up an oscilloscope or something and check against a reference signal - audiophiles just absolutely refuse to use them. There is a really good thread over on AVSForum that gets into this topic, with some discussion by individuals who know a lot more about the science of sound than I ever will: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1187104
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 05:58
|
|
|
Elentor posted:Sincerely, this is all bullshit. Even if these "effects" were all real, their impact in the final sound heard by a human would be absolutely 0. Some of them are bullshit, yes. A lot of them are not. Speaker spikes can make a measurable and audible difference. Preamplifiers (and more specifically volume controls) can have a very measurable and audible effect. Speaker technologies obviously have a massive effect on final sound quality. Almost anything involving the physical playback of vinyl can have a measurable and audible sound difference. That video didn't just focus on fringe tweaks. quote:I'm not much into speakers, but I personally enjoy some good headphones. A lot of the expense of high-end audio involves soundstaging, imaging, and room interactions, which ultimately are all intertwined, and are avoided by using headphones. quote:Amplifiers do make a difference. You're going to need to be more specific here. Are you speaking about just an amplifier, or are you talking about an amplifier paired with some form of volume control? If it involves a volume control, of course you can hear a difference -- volume control is perhaps the most difficult part of the analog electronic chain to get right. If you're dealing with mismatched impedances, of course you're hearing a difference. If you're switching between solid state and tubes, you may be hearing a difference. But, assuming that the electronics are properly matched and capable of driving the speaker load without distorting, changing the amplifier should make the most negligible difference in sound quality. The difference, arguably, should be inaudible. quote:Any other fancy crap that isn't the headphone, the amp or the source (which doesn't make much difference if you have an amp, keep in mind) is complete and absolute bullshit. Unless there's a very specific function you need for something really relevant, these trinkets to improve the sound quality, "bring the details", "enrich your experience" or "reduce the micro-vibrations and the noise level from the omicron rays coming from the outer space" are absurd and I'm amazed people buy them. Yes, some of it is bullshit, and a lot of it is not. The bags of marbles that sit on your components? Obviously laughable. Other things are not. Once again, using headphones eliminates a lot of these problems, but eliminates aspects of the presentation as well. quote:Sincerely, I don't think it's possible for all of these rich people to believe that what they're buying is really making a difference. I think they see these things as jewelry. It just makes them feel better because it's more expensive. I can't for the life of me comprehend how can someone spend hundreds of thousands and believe all these fancy stuff is really making a minimal difference. I've attended a good number of audio shows and I know a lot of audiophiles. I have a friend who owns a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandrias, which retail at well over $100,000. I don't know a single one who purchases expensive equipment merely because it is expensive. On the other hand, I have talked to many high-end dealers, though, who have said they have clients who come in wanting a new home theater, and the only requirement is that it be better than the one their friends just had put in. What I'm trying to say is that the people who purchase these things as 'jewelry' are generally not enthusiasts, or audiophiles for that matter. quote:On the other hand, we should start our own company to develop sound equipments. I can help with the design. We can be rich. People like to say this, but the audiophile world is rarely as profitable as people like to think, including cable manufacturing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
madprocess posted:Way I see it, he's made crazy profit. Crazy profit and get rich are entirely different things. Kinda funny that somebody bought it. If i had the funds, I would buy a few to send to some specific friends as a gag gift, and to reward the guy for some clever writing. Anyway, moving away from esoteric tweaks and into things that make a discernible difference in sound quality, here's a two-part interview with my favorite speaker designer, Richard Vandersteen, in which he discusses his new $45,000 pair of speakers. Richard is well-known for his adherence to a cost plus system for pricing his speakers, simply meaning that the retail price directly reflects the cost of building the speaker, and I've been told by a few dealers that the margins on his speakers are lower than the industry average. It's an interesting read for anyone who wants to see the kind of thought that goes into audio design. Part 1: http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/20090901.htm Part 2: http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/20091001.htm And the speaker in question, as part of a $300,000 system (the turntable accounts for half of that): 
TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 07:46
|
|
|
qirex posted:Why are there 5 amps? Or is that 4 amps and something else? There are 2 amps on the floor behind the speaker, and the speakers there have built-in amplifiers for their subwoofers. On the left side is the line stage with dual mono power supplies. On the right is the phono preamplifier, also with dual mono power supplies. The electronics are all from Aesthetix, and the turntable is from Clearaudio. Gromit posted:Maybe it says it in the links you posted and I missed it, but what exactly is it in his speakers that cost so much money if his mark-up is so low? The cones are made out of carbon-fibre and balsa wood, with neodymium magnets. The boxes are HDF and carbon-fibre, and painted with car paint. From the end of Part 1, speaking about the new midrange driver: quote:The only real problem with our resulting cones is the cost. The cones for the midrange driver cost something like $2000 a pair, which is basically an order of magnitude more than what otherwise-available, top-quality midrange drivers cost, with all subcomponents included. That's not even for the full driver, just the cone. Place a 40% profit margin on that for the manufacturer and you come out at about $3300. Place a 40% margin on that for the dealer and you're up to about $5500 just for the midrange cones. quote:I'm pretty sure that companies that do actual valid research and have much larger research divisions would incorporate actual innovations into their products. The linked article is about a small company that does do "actual valid" research and develops new products as a result. Yes, there is a lot of crap out there, but at the same time there are a lot of companies that are producing products (at any price range) based on good science and not snake oil claims.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
Well, here's the inside of the actual line stage box: It's a true dual mono design, down to separate volume controls and power inputs for each channel. This is normally sold with a single power supply for both channels, but yes, dual power supplies are available. I make no claims as to whether this makes any audible or measurable difference, but placing the power supply (and more specifically, the transformer) as far from possible from the audio path is a good thing to do. An easy way to do this is to use a second box, like you see here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
davepsilon posted:I don't really care what people spend their money on, but it is crazy to claim that a custom $150,000 turntable is better than a technic 1200 ($300) for the sole reason that it reproduces the audio more accurately, as it is not the best way to do that. A can't be better than B, because C is superior. That's faulty logic if I've ever heard it. While we're at it, CDs are poo poo because they're only 16-bit/44.1kHz. Anything short of 24/96 is obviously inferior, so why purchase a CD? And yes, the $150,000 turntable is a luxury item. Nobody would ever claim otherwise. The system there represents a cost-no-object attempt at putting together the best sound possible, and anybody who attempts that understands that they'll be paying exorbitant amounts of money for very incremental improvements in sound quality. If they can afford it, and that's what they want to do with their money, then who cares? And I'm not even get into the analog vs. digital debate. I currently don't own a turntable because I don't have the space to store records, but as soon as I do I plan to purchase one. Regardless of sound quality, I find playing vinyl to be a more enjoyable experience. There's more satisfaction (for me, at least) in setting a record, turning on a motor, and playing a record than there is in hitting the play button on a remote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I think it fair, though, to suggest that buyers of these are after the bragging rights rather than the output? First, I really wish that I did know his precise costs, because it would be fun to see precisely where the money goes. The audio world has plenty of gear with prices that in no way match their materials costs-- Lamm Industries and Wavac are two that come to mind-- but I see no reason to believe that this speaker isn't priced by the same cost plus method. I also haven't had the chance to listen to the speaker in question, so I can't honestly comment on its value, but I have spent a considerable amount of time listening to the next model down, the 5A. It currently retails for $16,900, and if I could I would purchase a pair. Yes, this is already way past the tipping point of diminishing returns, and I freely admit that, but I personally see enough value in it that I would consider spending that much money. Now, back to the quoted question. Yes, some buyers purchase ultra-expensive gear for bragging rights. Some purchase it because they're wealthy enough that they purchase the best of everything and just happen to want a stereo. Others purchase it because they want the best sound possible. I really don't think that many people purchase based on bragging rights. First, who are you going to brag to? People on the internet? Other audiophiles? High-end audio generally isn't "conspicuous consumption" in the same way that, say, a porsche or a boat is. The general public doesn't care about sound reproduction enough. It's quite possible that Joe Average would be more impressed if you blew your money on that "really cool Bose system with the tiny cubes." If you ask me, the real division between audiophiles is best shown by their music purchasing habits vs. their gear purchasing habits. If you're talking to somebody who has blindly swapped cables/amps/speakers 5 times in the last month based on what somebody over on audiogon suggested but hasn't bought new music in the last 3 years, and instead listens to the same 5 reference discs over and over while he moves his speakers 1/32" of an inch at a time, just walk away. They've clearly lost track of the purpose of the hobby, and I would argue are the people most likely to purchase expensive gear simply because it is expensive. On the other hand, if you're talking to a guy who's constantly searching for new, great sounding music, has a well-set-up system, and changes components when he feels that the change makes a significant difference, you've found a quality audiophile. Oddly enough, the almost-deaf guy I know absolutely falls into the second camp. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
MrBling posted:laser turntable It got a lot of really positive attention when it was first released, but ultimately suffered from a pretty major fault. If the record being played wasn't perfectly clean the turntable would screech loudly every time the laser ran over the piece of dust. This was back when it was first released, and for all I know the issue has been fixed, but I don't really see the turntable being discussed much anymore. madprocess posted:I'd actually love to have that if had facilities for easy transfer to digital storage. A lot of people were interested in it for just this. I know of a good number of audiophiles who make digital recordings of their records for casual listening and preserve the vinyl itself for more serious listening sessions. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 22:36
|
|
|
2reachmu posted:But, I haven't read anything about people seeking out master TAPES or duplicates of master tapes from studio sessions on reel to reel.  Never mind the speakers, because seriously what the gently caress, but this is a company that refurbishes old reel-to-reel machines. It's not very common, but I do know a few people who have reel-to-reels for exactly the purpose you've described. I've also seen them used as a source in some show rooms, but sadly never in a system I've cared for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2009 05:47
|
|
|
HKR posted:I bought one of these yesterday on ebay: Very nice! Do you stick with vintage speakers as well, and if so, what are you running?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2009 19:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Amphigory posted:Holy poo poo I need to stop reading this thread I saw this earlier and looked up a few of those reviews. They're pretty much they were talking about a show room that LessLoss was part of. Now, how much of those positive reviews was the result of the $50,000 speakers that were being used, and how much was the result of their magic cables and electron organizers? Gotta love marketing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 03:16
|
|
|
wasp_f15ing posted:I would like to buy a floorstanding speaker which is 4 way. Budget/Willingness to buy used/qualities you're looking for/other gear?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2009 06:49
|
|
|
I found this gem while searching for reviews of the new Wilson Audio Sasha:Beerdraft at AudioAficionado.org posted:Ok, the B&W to Sasha was huge, the C500T to the REX was huge, this rack may take the crown as the single most improvement of one component and they aren't done with what they can do according to the manual. I got the Critical Mass Systems Platinum racks in today. It warns you that upon first putting them together that they will sound listenable and ok but they will change undeniably over the next 300 hours or so and at times may not be listenable during this time. Well at first listen it was astounding the difference. The stage was definitely more transparent. The biggest thing I got right away was the bottom end got even better which I had no problem with the bottom before, thought it was as good as I had heard, then the "ch", the "T" and the "S" of everything had a chhht or a tee' or a sssts to it so to speak that I'm not sure I heard anywhere else ever before so nice except in Glenn Poors Audio when I heard the Sasha for the first time and the equipment was on Critical Mass System Racks. This is one of the things that made me sell my entire system was the explanation point on everything. The BAT stuff over the Mcintosh and Wilson Sasha over the B&W got me somewhat there but this rack is the final piece to the puzzle of sound. I'm just at the beginning the break in which they say is a good chance to listen now but be prepared for it to change for the better or the worse over the next 300 hours till it settles in. In the bass guitar I hear more of the upper frequency rattle of strumming a bass guitar. Its very hard to explain but everything just got naturally beautiful even more so. My pre is tube and my amps are solid state but these racks just made it as good and airy but more natural than any tube sound and the emphasis of the above is more so than I think I've ever heard in any sound system ever but if you hear it live you do hear that stuff. If this stays as it is or gets even better then this will be the best $17k I've spent for sure. I tried to explain this to and you will have to forgive me as I know you don't know me that well but my audio buddies know I'm not so brite and I don't know the audio terms a lot of people know but I do know what and how to listen and I'm telling you that these racks made an immediate improvement over my previous racks and to explain it is hard for me but to hear it is easy. That's right. 300 hours to break in an audio rack. A $17,000 audio rack. That he considers to be a more significant change in sound than switching brands of speakers. I have no problem defending a lot of the things in the audiophile world, but this one is beyond me. Also, CES just finished up. Check out http://spintricity.com/64/6490/jan-2010/ces-2010---day-1-forth-floor-flamingo and the following pages for some pretty good photos of the audio rooms. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jan 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2010 08:14
|
|
|
proudfoot posted:How the hell would anyone justify a break-in period required for a rack? Read their website, it's quite entertaining: http://www.criticalmasssystems.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
Princess posted:In case anybody cares, I think those are Magnepan's. Probably the most expensive speakers there are. Audioholics doesn't have a review of them. Does anyone know of a non-magical review of them? I'd be interested to know if there is actually any value to them. Not Magnepans. Those are Sound Lab Majestics. They're electrostats and, if I remember correctly, pretty much have to be that big to reproduce the full audio spectrum. I've never heard them, unfortunately. I have, however, had the opportunity to hear the Magnepan 20.1, their top-of-the-line speaker. It was almost 6 years ago and with unfamiliar music, but I remember thinking that they were very capable for the price ($12,500) and great at reproducing stringed instruments, but something about their sound bothered my ears. I didn't have enough time to figure out exactly what, but I could hear enough good things that I could understand why somebody would love them. I can't say the same thing for plenty of other speakers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:Nah, it's just that if you chop the cable in half, each side weighs the same. This helps them sit evenly when using cable risers. I won't lie. I love cable risers. Pointless? Sure. But I love the way they look.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Who wants a listening room in their house, when you can have a separate LISTENING BARN? Oh hey, it's Mike Lavigne's barn. I actually met him at RMAF two years ago. Really nice guy. He manages a Honda dealership. It would take some digging to find them again, but I know I've seen measurements of his room, and at the time it measured extremely well. Looking at the current photos, it looks like he's made a number of changes. The room used to have a lot more fabric, which appears to have been replaced with more wood. There was a lot of interesting discussion on AVSForum when he had the room constructed. He felt like the room basically required extremely large speakers. A good number of people felt that this indicated that the room was "bad." There has also been a lot of criticism of the room designer, Rives Audio, which apparently has a reputation for using a "one-size fits all" approach to room acoustics.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Quoting myself here, it was the Ayre DX-5 Bluray player ($10,000), which is nothing more than a rebranded Oppo player ($500). Theta and Lexicon are doing the exact same thing, but I can't remember which of them started the mudslinging. The Lexicon was the direct rebrand (except for the splash screen and case). Ayre modified the power supply and the analog outputs. There's a pretty good post over on whatsbestforum explaining why this is happening (written regarding home theater, but applies to audio as well): http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ll=1#post231773 Basically, small companies can't afford to implement HDMI into their own designs, so they're stuck modifying or rebadging existing designs. This is one reason, I think, that there are so many new high-end DACs on the market now. It lets the companies avoid the issue altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Modifying the power supply and analog outputs of a blue ray player isn't going to make a difference in quality unless those parts were marginal to start with (and I mean "barely works"). Especially not for a 1900% price increase. Who the hell uses analog outputs with Blu-Ray, anyways? The Oppo was a universal player, so audiophiles who wanted CD, DVD-A and SACD in one unit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Do you want to hear "the music as the artists heard it in the studio"? As near as I can tell (and Linn's marketing has been terrible), this is little more than a network player with a digital link to speakers with built in amplifiers. Honestly, in terms of "lifestyle" systems, the idea makes sense (but not at their price). An attractive networked box that can pull data from your computer/tablet/phone and play it directly to speakers without any middle ground components is a good thing. It will never catch on with audiophiles, though, because it eliminates the neurotic gear swapping.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I found this interesting. It's from whatsbestforum in a thread about an $8,400 power cable. The author is the owner and lead designer of Atma-Sphere Music Systems. quote:If you want to know what power cords work, I can explain that. the principle is different from why power conditioners work. I don't have the EE background to qualify what he's saying, but it echoes my personal view on power cables, etc., which is basically that they only make an audible difference when they're physically deficient. In other words, if you hear a measurable difference one of the two cables is basically broken. What is very entertaining is how much hate he got from other people for making this post. It's apparently sacrilege to try and measure things to determine why you can hear a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Now you guys have got me curious about measuring the phase and frequency response effects of the presets and the graphic in iTunes. For gently caress's sake. Post the results if you do. I'm honestly curious. I spent last night toying with a Fisher console stereo from 1963. Apparently I'll be inheriting it from my grandma when the time comes. The cabinetry is in great shape, but the electronics are going to need some work, and the foam surrounds for the speaker drivers are obviously dead, given their age. The biggest thing for me will be figuring out how to get rid of the nasty 60 hertz hum. In the end, it should make a nice piece for our master bedroom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:Is the high end audio industry growing with rampant increases in wealth inequality or was it hit hard by the recession? I have a friend who is interviewing with a botique gear distributor and I can't decide whether to tell him its a silly industry or to take those suckers all the way to the bank. From what I can gather, the high-end market is shrinking in the US, together with the shrinking of the middle class. It's one of the reasons why prices are skyrocketing, as companies move to target the 1% exclusively. The real growth is in Asia, where newly-minted millionaires and billionaires are looking to spend their money as conspicuously as possible. Exceptionally expensive equipment (the Naim Statement amp comes to mind) are basically built with the idea that they will sell less than 10 total, and all in Asia, but the markup is so insane that it will be profitable for the company.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Sorbus posted:I borrow interesting records from my city's library and rip them as FLAC. I'm pretty sure that the audio quality is same as spotify premium's, but they FEEL better oh god im the audiophile I thought everybody did this, although I use Apple Lossless.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:As a member of the audiophile industry, I can tell you that the surest way to piss off an audiophile is to tell them that Diana Krall is the best artist in the history of all music. Does anyone actually listen to Diana Krall outside of audio shows? I mean, if somebody walks into the room and asks you to put on Diana Krall, they've basically admitted that they have no taste. There's a guy I see at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest each year who goes from room to room listening to the same German metal song. And I mean it's the same song every single year. I haven't been able to decide if he's the world's best audiophile troll or if he's really spending thousands of dollars to improve the sound quality of dynamically compressed screaming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I just got back from the show at Newport, and everyone and their brother was playing Stevie Ray Vaughan ad nauseum. Some guys come in to the room and have a CD that they absolutely have to hear immediately. There's a mix between Jazz purists and people who just want to hear something with a good mix. For all the bullshit, listening to "Superstition" on a $500k system did sound pretty incredible. That beats RMAF two years ago. Nothing but K.D. Lang's Hallelujah, over and over again. Found this gem in a thread about audio playback advances from the last 25 years: quote:The more we learnt, the more we discover how much we don't yet know.... I don't even know where to begin with this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:That was an interesting read! Shatters my preconceptions about FLAC! How about if I bought albums directly from say HDtracks, they must sound better right? Or its very possible to that HD audio is a lie. Some of the HDTrack releases have better-sounding mixes than what you would find on the CD or iTunes, but as near as I can tell there is no way to figure out which tracks do and which tracks don't. me your dad posted:I can't think of a better thread to ask about this. Capital Audio Fest is a pretty small show, both in the number of rooms and the attendance numbers. The small number of rooms is kind of a letdown, but the low attendance numbers means that if you like something, you can generally listen for a long time without bothering anybody. The size of the show seems to keep away the really big players, although to me this is almost a plus. You likely won't see the obscenely expensive gear that you would at T.H.E. Show or RMAF, but the owners and designers you'll meet are usually very personable and open to questions/discussions. Looking at the exhibitor list, there are a few rooms that would be pretty interesting. Audio Note UK can be a good listen if the presenter is willing to have fun with the music (they sometimes have a guy who seems a tad too preoccupied with "audiophile-quality" classical music). The Classic Audio room is always a blast. I recall almost always hearing great classic rock from their rooms, with prodigious amounts of very good bass. I personally would enjoy the Zu Audio room, but I'm biased, since I own a pair and they're a local company. For $10 it would be a no brainer. For $20, it's a bit tougher, but to me it would be worth it. Shows are the best way to hear a lot of systems back to back, which makes it easy to determine what kind of sound you like, and what kind of sound you absolutely want to avoid in the future. It only took a few hours attending my first show to determine that I hate sibilance, generally dislike horns, and am better off avoiding ribbon tweeters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:Nuh-uh! 0Hz is either pressurising your room or making it a partial vacuum There was a guy on avsforum who had one of those installed a number of years back. He had also excavated under his garage's foundation to build his theatre, so over-the-top was kind of his thing. He said that when he had it all the way up the first time, he had a few neighbors wondering if there was an earthquake.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 00:21
|
|
